Bring on The Hessians
John McCain’s foreign policy adviser Max Boot admits its hard raising an army the size that McCain will need for his 100 year campaign in Iraq. He has a brilliant idea on how to fill the ranks–Recruit foreigners and then give them citizenship.
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has it within his power with the stroke of a pen to waive the Green Card requirement for enlistment. He should do it now. Otherwise the army in particular will have a hard time attracting all the high-quality volunteers that it needs, not only to fill today’s force but also the larger force we need to build for the future
One of the reasons we kicked British Ass in the Revolutionary War was that many of their soldiers were Hessian mercenaries, who were just in it for the money and actually hated their British commanders. Just what we need is an Army filled with foreign mercenaries. McCain is a full fledged NeoCon, surrounded by the idiots who brought us Iraq.
Wow, the whole idea of that blows my mind.
That one policy would have so many implications for notions of citizenship, global governance, the nation state, nationalism, and Lord knows what, that it’s making my head spin just thinking about it. Even SUGGESTING it signals important shifts in these areas. I can already hear the political economy scholars (among many many others) scribbling furiously…hopefully the mainstream critical media isn’t too far behind.
he will never get elected–to old to crazy–doug
Nice to know that McCain’s advisors hope to maintain the same level of self-deception and ill-informed decision making that is driving the current president:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/terrorism.usa1
Since we already have an estimated 12 million illegals in the country, why not offer a choice; deportation or enlistment in the Blackwater army.
Nothing like Hessians. These are people who LIVE HERE. 750K of military age. They WANT a path to citizenship. And certainly, serving in the military is an admirable path to citizenship, no better or worse than having desirable skills. Right?
This is a good idea – even if there was no war going on. It is a savvy immigration compromise.
Morgan-Except that Boot was actually suggesting we recruit from outside the US, dangling citizenship as the bait.
Yes Boot goes further.
So you’re ok on offering it to the illegals here as a policy?
Sounds like someone has been reading Heinlein again. Starship Troopers anyone, not the video movie version but the real words out of the old man’s contentious libertarian book. Gee, maybe next we could make voting be a privilege only earned by military service. Or maybe we could end this war by bringing back the draft. This is fun. One hairbrained idea after another.
What’s wrong with the draft? Don’t be so sure it would “end” war. The only thing we know a draft guarantees for sure is it that we’d have a much bigger force (like we did pre-Clinton). Keeping energy from being weaponized is certainly worth fighting for… even if Iraqi freedom wasn’t.
Heinlein’s great, but this has NOTHING to do with it. This isn’t about weakening your right to citizenship. Don’t be so hard on the 12M trying to convince others they are worth keeping.
We have 12M “illegals,” and while I’m FOR open-door immigration, most others aren’t. Since many of those against immigration are for the war, I figure this is a nice compromise to help solve two problems. They get more warriors they get more neighbors.
Being against the war shouldn’t preclude you from accepting better war policies, like the draft or path to citizenship. Nothing is easy. New thinking is required.
Morgan-What I’m trying to suggest is that the connection between the size of our army and our economic security is being misdrawn. McCain is constantly calling for a bigger Army, but we already outmatch all of our competitors combined. Expanding the military budget further, using borrowed money from the Chinese Government, just makes us more economically vulnerable.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/republican-debate/
Jon,
We aren’t borrowing money for the military, we are borrowing money for entitlements. Seriously.
And as others have passionately noted here, and as I’ve tried to explain – we have to be 100% sure energy isn’t/can’t be weaponized against us. Greenspan’s point was the “straits of hormuz,” he’s a free market guy, if he says “oil” (you knew it was oil, I knew it was oil, everyone knew it was oil), it is because he didn’t think the market could solve for weaponized oil.
I’m not a neo-con (spreading democracy is not worth war) and I’m socially and economically a rabid libertarian – but I’m not seeing much here that actually guarantees unfettered access to oil without (don’t puke) Cheney style intervention. War for Oil is about the only war worth fighting, right?
To be specific, I mean if push comes to shove, and the alt.energy stuff isn’t covering the gap, and the oil is being held from us, unless we let Iran have a bomb, or we weaken our position on Israel, or some other thing that pretends we aren’t the only Superpower, we will go take it forceably right? Overthrow governments, sow instability. Sure trust the market, but have the forces to make sure everyone else has to too. Right?
@Morgan:
“We aren’t borrowing money for the military, we are borrowing money for entitlements.”
The FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion, of which 20% is Social Security, 20% is Medicare/Medicaid, 20% is DoD/DHS/”Global War on Terror”, and 40% other. This does not account for separate appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we were already $240 billion in deficit without those appropriations. Hence, it’s fair to say that we’re borrowing for the military as much as, if not more so, than we are borrowing for entitlements. (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/browse.html)
“we have to be 100% sure energy isn’t/can’t be weaponized against us”
Try replacing “energy” with “anchovies” in your sentence and see how silly it sounds. The problem is, you have supplied as much proof that we need to prevent weaponized energy as you have supplied proof that we need to prevent weaponized anchovies. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, but you will be able to convince more people with more supporting evidence. The one thing I really appreciate about Mr. Taplin’s blog is that he links to sources and other data that supports his arguments.
The latter weaponization of oil, as it figures into the messages of Osama bin Laden, is intended for both the umma, and the American public. The umma is encouraged to fight as a part of the global jihadist movement against both American targets, as well as their collaborators—Al-Saud. The American people is the second intended audience of the messages of bin Laden, with the purpose of spreading discontent and resentment against their government over a war for oil.
http://www.jmss.org/2008/winter/articles/williams.pdf
Then there’s Putin sick screwing with the Ukraine…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4572712.stm
But I mean C’MON! Jon posted about Greenspan saying the war was about oil – and we all KNEW that, the point is that Greenspan is a serious free trader – if he thought the market would keep the oil flowing free, he wouldn’t have supported the war for oil. He said exactly that explaining the “straits of hormuz,” we had to make sure neither Iraq and now Iran try to control the free flow of our life blood.
Morgan- You forgot what happened the last time Gulf States tried to use Oil as a weapon. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, prices skyrocketed. The U.S. cut back radically on energy usage and revenues in Gulf States plunged. Within three years, world oil prices had plunged. If you wan to see more look here.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Jon:
I don’t know that our Army is so terribly large — according to all-knowing wikipedia, China has us outnumbered 2M to 1M or so. It’s our technology driven military *budget* that’s so enormous.
I don’t have a problem with citizenship as a reward for military service, but if you put it in the context of our volunteer military and aggressively militarized foreign policy, Max Boot’s suggestion smells bad. It’s as if we’ve decided soldiering is just another of those famous “jobs American’s won’t take” like gardening or ditch digging. So if the Americans “we” have don’t like these wars, “we” will just have to go shop us some “better” Americans.
Aren’t “We the people” supposed to choose our leaders, rather than the other way ’round?
Jon, you know I haven’t forgotten about price effecting demand, it happens right now – that’s why gas reserves have grown and the cost of gas is expected to fall .50 cents.
But, I really don’t think you can persuasively argue market forces:
1) If you don’t trust really trust them for the simple stuff like medical, employment, and taxes.
2) In the face of life long libertarians (Greenspan), you completely gloss over their concerns about weaponized oil.
Which is more likely, a rabid free market guy has deeply serious concerns about the energy weapon OR a non-libertarian suddenly gets the “market will solve” religion when there’s some short term pain, he wants to alleviate.
Let’s look at the quote Greenspan actually said, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
He ia SAD, that people can’t / won’t admit it and STILL go fight a war. He is saying, “it totally sucks that people don’t understand the death and suffering they will face in the future without fighting for the free flow of oil.”
Some of us, Jon, actually take seriously the very well laid plans since Nasser, even as early as WWI, to gain control of the oil and use it to raises themselves up at OUR cost.
Jon, I am 100% behind anything that puts alt.energy into immediate competition with oil, so starvation is equally more likely for energy rich nations if they try to weaponize oil.
But you still haven’t said, “Morgan if I’m wrong, and they successfully weaponize energy, while we suffer, if alt.energy doesn’t solve, if our people are cold, if it is painful for us – THEN, I will support us de-stabilizing their countries, destroying their assets, invading and controlling (maximizing) the flow of oil.”
It is a real question, asked and feared by real people, don’t be afraid to answer it. To be taken seriously you must.
Morgan-As you can tell by my New Federalism ideas, I support a lot of Libertarian notions. That said this quote
“Some of us, Jon, actually take seriously the very well laid plans since Nasser, even as early as WWI, to gain control of the oil and use it to raises themselves up at OUR cost.”
troubles me. The actual results of this 50 years has been the opposite. Check out this stunning article about which I will write more later today
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/middleeast/17youth.html
[...] have been having a vibrant discussion on this blog for the past couple of weeks about the nature of American power in the Middle East. I [...]
Jon – Just finished the times article on middle east youth and I can only say that we need, as a world, to figure this out. Or see a way through this that is non-confrontational. It may be why a free internet is so important. The examples in the story seem caught between the modern and the old. Someone in their country needs to step up and lead that contradiction towards a peaceful resolution. At the same time, it really is at odds with the accepted perception of the oil-rich Arab world, isn’t it? How can they be poor? Aren’t “they” making all that money off of oil? Anyway thanks for the link. Something else, this whole discussion reminds of that Robert Ferrigno novel from last year.
rhbee-Obviously the money being made by the royal families in the Gulf is not trickiling down to the average citizen.
What was the name of the Ferrigno novel you referred to?
Jon,
Two things: You were right, the comment above is the one I thought I left on the story about the children of Islam and the Ferrigno book is called Prayers for the Assassin, a Novel published in 2006.