Modern US Army

After the 1st Gulf War, the US Army was reduced in size from 13 to 10 Divisions. Now rumors are going around that it might be reduced down to 8 divisions. This, coupled with a low volunteer rate (volunteer army) puts the US Army in a bad situation. Their goal is to be able to fight two wars in different parts of the globe at once. This would be a stretch even on top of the USA's peacekeeping duties in Bosnia, Korea, etc.
The US Army should allow foreign citizens to serve in a couple of 'foreign legions' like France has. The US could offer citizenship if you stayed in for a certain number of years. The British (Ghurkas) and French (Foreign Legion) have already done this. Even the Roman Empire did this to some extent with their Auxillery Corps.
What do you think?

 

Perhaps we could start by enlisting the umpteen numbers of illiegal aliens now living in California who are not even U.S. citizens and recieving welfare and social security benifits...

 

Which contributed to un-Romanise the Empire and Germanise it... Result: Dark Age...

Many of them are already in the USMC and many others are no longer receiving welfare because of the bloody Austrian...

 

Good idea in theory. But in reality i don't think it would work. For the Brigade of Gurkhas there is a lineage of service with the british and indian armies. Also these people are a warrior race and see it as duty to fight for a country that has provided protection for their country in times of need. This doesn't exist within an illegal immigrant community. There would be no esprit d'corps. That is what binds the french and spanish foreign legion together - a sense of being and pride. these men are volunteers who give up everything to go and fight for a foreign country.

 

Must remember that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the US no longer needs a huge standing army. It probably has re-evaluated its role and is restructuring to accomodate. It needs to evolve so new changes are warranted.

As for having foriegn volunteers, Friedrich is correct. More margin for espionage.

while I'm on my soap box, I personally think the army is being used in roles it was not trained for. Police work is not in its training program. The US needs to stop with its occupation duties. This is a formula for disaster.

[ 26. January 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: PzJgr ]

 

Got any more room on that soapbox PzJgr?Could'nt agree more!How long have we been in Korea[40yrs?]Iraq, we should have took care of them the 1st time! FramerT.

 

Police duties!! yeah the US Army needs to learn some lessons from the Brits in this respect. IMHO the americans have never been any good at winning the hearts and minds of the people with whom they have just occupied. Just look at Iraq. All you here on the TV is of dead US soldiers never Brits. They could learn a thing or too. Typically when a british unit move into an area it has occupied it seeks to involve the local population in its running and gain them on side. Another tactic which has been learnt by the brits is something simple such as not wearing helmets. now this is dangerous but usually says to an occupied people we are here to help not to occupy. Britain has learnt many lessons in its retreat from empire some the yanks could seriously do with looking at.

 

Well you know, most of the troops in Iraq are US.

Also, a lot of the units in Iraq (besides the Airborne) are reserve units. These men and women are citizen-soldiers. They haven't been trained for peacekeeping duties. The US Army is still in a Cold War mentality, thinking the army is going to fight these huge battles with the Warsaw Pact. They aren't prepared for 21st century warfare.

 

But I entirely agree. The US should learn from the British.

Mahross:

They should know something, shouldn't they? Occupying 1/4 of the world must provide some experience, right?

 

Mah,
The British army learned it's policing skills from 30 years in Ulster. They had no other choice but watch every step they made.

Regards,
Gordon

 

sounds like a similiar environment as what the US army is in now.

 

Did the Brits.have their helmets on in Irelend?Argentina? If my memory is correct Britian [Blair]was all for it too!Iraq that is.General,if it was up to me,we would'nt be occupying 1/4 of the world.Russia may not be of danger any more but has anyone heard of CHINA! FramerT.

 

What the hell are you talking about? I was referring to the British Empire during the first half of the XX century.

And about China, you don't have why to worry about. China and Japan provide the US with 1,5 billion dollars every day to keep the US economy going.

 

SORRY General!! I reread your post and have inserted foot into mouth! FramerT.

 

framert,
The only British troops to have been in Argentina were the SAS, and they didn't wear helmets!


Regards,
Gordon

[ 28. January 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

"If my memory is correct Britian [Blair] was all for it too! Iraq that is."

Ahem......quite a difference between Phoney Blair and Britain. Both are red, white and blue but Blair incorporates stars


No.9


[ 28. January 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

 

This mess in Iraq should prove to be a good, but bloody, training ground for the US. I have a feeling this will come back to haunt them later on (like Iran).

PS. Love the pictures

[ 28. January 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Ancient Fire ]

 

Historian - True but also lots was learnt in places such as malaya and aden. nut i entirely agree that ulster has been a training ground.

 

With a reduction in defence capabilities comes the need to realise the fact that you're going to have to reduce your responsibilities as well.

I'm not sure about the situation in great detail with reference to either the UK or US armed forces but it seems to me that if you reduce your defence budget then this should go hand in hand with cutting back your global policing, peacekeeping and 'regime change ' duties?

This goes along with a reduction in global prestige and influence. Now I'm not arguing for massive defence budgets all across the board just so that your home country can practice some good old fashioned gunboat diplomacy I'm stating my opinion that you can't have your cake and eat it.

I hope I haven't waffled too much but I hope I've made myself clear!

 

Interesting Thread,

Tis true the US is reducing it's numbers but you all seem to forget on thing.

Jets, Tanks, Satellites, and ships require much less crew than they did even 20 years ago.

20 to man the 16" guns
4 to man the tomahawk missile launcher.

We are still without a doubt the premier military in the world, no one even comes close. Like it or not, you know this is true, and so do the Chinese.

What we SHOW the world is 1/10th of what we have.

And don't forget killsats and HAARP, hackers and spies, Seals and DeltaForce, Insurgents and Money, etc.

No offense to anyone, but I do grow tired of all the bashing we seem to get around the world.

By the way, we are pulling 33% of our Military from Europe so we are infact, consolidating the force.

Also, there are over 50 million available troops

(American population 18-27 current legal draft age)

So, forgive me for saying I am not worrier.

Oh and Hello all!

-mdb