Bill Kristol and former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer appeared on a panel at Sunday’s AIPAC session. The tone was academic and the conversation far-ranging. But one could see the fundamental divide in how Obama’s critics and supporters assess his foreign policy and America’s place in the world.
Kristol, although a tough critic of much of the Obama policy, took the glass-is-half-full approach, reminding the crowd that the U.S. remains quite powerful and that “if we stick with our allies and are clear and resolute,” we will remain so. He cautioned against too much nostalgia for the “American Century,” in which we lost (and then regained) half of Europe to Communism and fought multiple wars. Now we have many “strong and vibrant democracies,” including India, and are still the world’s main military guarantor. However, whatever successes we have had in avoiding nuclear war, combating terrorism, and containing regional conflicts, “all goes very fast if America is in retreat or perceived retreating.” For our success, Kristol credited ordinary Americans, who “haven’t turned xenophobic, isolationist, or protectionist.” He says that is a “tribute to them . . . and how good natured they are.”
Kurtzer spoke of the challenges we face, claiming that we have “devalued diplomacy” (more on that), don’t do intelligence analysis well, and risk eroding our economic position by mismanaging our finances. (“We don’t want to be a debtor country to China.”) There was considerable agreement on the need to bolster alliances.
There were differences, however, on the role of non-state actors. (Kurtzer thinks they are terribly important; Kristol argues that ”states matter most,” pointing out that ”unless sponsored or harbored,” these non-state groups are not a significant threat.) As for China, Kurtzer argued that it is heading for an inevitable conflict, as political repression will collide with economic liberalization. Kristol chose to stress the positive, the remarkable ability to lift a billion people out of poverty. He called the rise of India and China as economic powers an “amazing achievement.” He also cautioned that we have in recent years allowed “authoritarians to regroup.” There is now a “plausible model” — Iran, Venezuela, or China — that is not democratic. This, Kristol cautioned, is “very dangerous. We don’t want to tell regimes that bullying works.”
The biggest divergence came in the discussion of “smart power.” Kurtzer said we haven’t done enough. Here, to the audible gasps of some conservatives in the room, he proclaimed that we can’t aspire to promote American values when we have 30 million people without health insurance. (The woman next to me declared in a stage whisper, “And he teaches this at a university.”) And, citing the controversial CENTCOM report, he said that the U.S. military was implicitly arguing that the U.S. has been insufficiently dedicated to resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (More crowd murmuring.) He then bemoaned the Iraq war, which had cost so much and in which we had lost so many lives. Kristol joked that he wanted to defend “dumb power” — that is, the indispensible role of American military power. The issue, Kristol said, is what types of policies work — citing the failure of Iran engagement and the Obami’s Middle East approach.
The Q & A was revealing on two counts. Several questioners went after the Obami for beating up on friends and trying to ingratiate themselves with adversaries. Kristol admitted to a certain sympathy with the questioners. On Israel, Kurtzer proclaimed that the relationship was fine and we had only one difference with Israel — West Bank settlements. (Huh? This was about Jerusalem, of course.) In response to a question on Iran, Kurtzer said the real problem was that we had not engaged Iran enough. One meeting three months ago just isn’t enough, he opined. Kristol declared himself “dubious on sanctions and diplomacy,” and argued that if there is to be military action, it must be by the U.S., both for technical and geopolitical reasons. And that brought the loudest round of applause.
In between the lines, you see the debate now raging: Have we fallen in love with diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake? Have we forgotten friends? Well, at least on one subject, the need for the U.S. to utilize military action, if necessary, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran found consensus in the room. But the Obami clearly don’t agree. What do those activists do about that? That’s going to be the subject of some discussion this week, and thereafter, in the American Jewish community.
Mr. Boot,
Could you clarify for me the current requirements for enlistees. I understand there are a number of aliens now serving, mostly of Hispanic descent. Under what legal status are they permitted to serve and how are they different that your recommendation?
Sounds like an excellent idea. I’m all for it. Can anyone offer a substantial objection? I know that I cannot.
I see no advantages over the U.S. military. They would be mercenaries like the Hessians were in 1776. We don’t need a Foreign Legion.
It all depends on whether you consider a volunteer who is paid a mercenary. One of my favorite quotes on the subject was in Milton Friedman debating with General Westmorland about ending the draft and creating the all volunteer US Military.
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/0199_thankyou.html
Was it also you, Mr. Boot, that promoted the idea of fast tracking citizen ship for foreign citizens that serve in the US military? I find the idea intriguing especially considering the Ameriphiles (what do you call the US equivalent of a Francophile?) found in Eastern Europe and the high demand for US Citizenship
Calls for an American “Freedom Fries” Legion are more evidence of neo-con imperialism. The US was founded in opposition to British imperialism, with the Constitution actually forbidding standing armies. Americans support an muscular foreign policy, but do not support reckless, endless imperial adventures and an army of taxpayer funded mercenaries.
Max Boot unwittingly shows how urgently the neo-conservative agenda needs to be repudiated in November.
There are, and have been, any number of people serving in the US armed forces that are not US citizens. We just don’t aggregate them in a single unit. Rather, we assimilate (note the word) them in to the service as a whole.
And be careful about passing comments on recruiting problems. I think you will find that the services are having no trouble recruiting. The combat arms are especially popular.
Calls for an American “Freedom Fries” Legion are more evidence of neo-con imperialism.
I don’t see how. Care to explain?
The US was founded in opposition to British imperialism,
No. It was founded in opposition to British tyranny.
with the Constitution actually forbidding standing armies.
The Constitution does no such thing. It prohibits standing armies without the consent of Congress.
Americans support an muscular foreign policy, but do not support reckless, endless imperial adventures and an army of taxpayer funded mercenaries.
Good thing the United States is not imperialist huh?
im·pe·ri·al·ism /ɪmˈpɪəriəˌlɪzəm/–noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
Iraq has a sovereign, elected government, we have reaped no financial gain from the invasion, nor are we, by any stretch of the imagination colonizing there.
Max Boot unwittingly shows how urgently the neo-conservative agenda needs to be repudiated in November.
Neoconservatives are here to stay. Neoconservative thinking and policy will, in the end, produce far more good than bad.
I know quite a few people from the Arab world alone who would love to sign on to something like this, and I have never even looked for such people. They’re around, in larger numbers than most Americans probably realize.
Let the Goths serve in the Roman army, and then let them settle on the frontiers. No harm done.
A. Fischer:
“Was it also you, Mr. Boot, that promoted the idea of fast tracking citizen ship for foreign citizens that serve in the US military? I find the idea intriguing especially considering the Ameriphiles (what do you call the US equivalent of a Francophile?) found in Eastern Europe and the high demand for US Citizenship.”
I am familiar with the cases of Italian anti-fascists, residing in the US illegally, prior to WWII, who enlisted in the US military. They were required to re-enter the US again, “legally,” from Cuba, after spending three months on the Island. They went right into the US Army. After their service, and with an honorable discharge in-hand, citizenship and legality were granted.
I believe this is an excellent idea. Not to queer the idea, the old Italian anti fascists believed Elanor Roosevelt was behind the whole plan, together with Professor Salvemini of Harvard University, a well positioned Italian anti-fascist.
The idea has been around a while. It should be applied to contemporary times, offering a path to citizenship, for legals and illegals, alike.
We need to imitate a French Foreign Legion, for what?
To support those who see a parallel between America and Rome?
To give the unsavory people fleeing the law and seeking anonymity, a haven? After WWII 60% of the France’s legionnaires were Germans lately of the SS.
We have enough of a manpower pool with a population of over 300 million. Our armed forces total around half of one percent of that number.
What it takes is making national service a desirable honor, and compensating quality people with good wages and benefits. It also requires backing people in Hollywood who want to support the military rather than defaming it.
NACL is correct. The FL was heavily populated with German soldiers post WW2 and the Legion itself was reported as having conducted atrocities/war crimes in Indochina and Algeria.
Grumpy – the situation was much more complicated than your letting on.
Such an army of mercenaries is not a good idea at all. As Max Boot has proposed it this has the appearance of a simple and convenient way of augmenting our military forces. But these would nevertheless be US military forces and we would be responsible for any of their activities. What is the point other than a tricky way of boosting our military might a bit? I see one point, though Max Boot does not mention it, and it is a potentially mischievous one at that. If we draw a force from other nations, won’t we be tempted to utilize these forces rather liberally – going to Darfur, for example. Where would it stop? Meanwhile, it would be our coinage and our responsibility. This seems to me as a path to a more adventurous foreign policy – one of promoting democracy (we will call it) in various corners of the earth. And when these forces fall short, who will go to their rescue? This is an idea looking for trouble.
#14 YbA
No doubt the situation was more complicated than a two-line combox post can handle.
The point is correct. We have let too many barbarians through the gates and under. We need to strengthen our own people, not hire the dregs of the world’s ports and the world’s fugitives as our strike force.
Grumpy
The German communities bordering the Roman empire were largely co-opted into the economy of the empire at the frontier. Luxuries flowed into the Germanic world, certain services, primarily labour-orientated, flowed into the Roman world.
The Romans were quite strict about keeping the Germanic peoples, in significant numbers, outside of the empire, primarily through strict border control.
Emperors prior to Valens certainly used Germanic troops as auxiliaries in campaigns (esp. Constantius II) and Valens, permitted the settlement of a significant number of Tervingi (if I recall correctly) within the empire’s frontier – primarily as a source of continued labour.
Maltreatment of this group led to a revolt. What Valens did not take into account was that other Germanic people would move across without permission, and then, that the original tribe would join with them against the host nation.
Another consideration was external population pressures (the Huns were pushing the Alans and Greuthingi towards the frontier by their incessant raiding).
An interesting historical incident with some parallels to ponder.
Max Boot,
Just what America needs. More immigrants. There are plenty of Americans here willing to do the job, if given the proper incentive.
I guess it would be out of the question to pay our soldiers more, or produce effective recruitment advertisements.
The ads out nowadays are inane and P.C. They target pussies instead of fighters. “An army of one,” etc. They usually tout job training that can be used in cvilian life, rather than national service. That’s why so many losers join the military specifically for non-combat positions, and a huge number of cowards have deserted to Canada. Even Marine Corps ads show Marines climbing mountains and twirling dress sabers. Anything but fighting.
If prospective recruits were shown that they have the chance to kill scum-sucking enemies of this country, and shown actual photos and film footage of Americans doing just that, recruitment would soar. Todays kids are indoctrinated with anti-war propaganda in our schools, but aggression is inate. It’s not a coincidence that graphically violent movies and video games are far and away the most popular with enlistment aged American men. “An army of one,” “be all that you can be,” “the few, the proud, the Marines,” etc. needs to be replaced with “GET SOME,” “DEATH FROM ABOVE,” “DON’T TREAD ON ME,” etc.
It doesn’t take a degree in psychology or a big brain to figure this out. Anybody who is touch with America’s youth knows this is axiomatic.
Unmentioned in Max’s post is the question of what will this contribute to US national security? How will this help us? I get the impression from the post and those in favor in the comments that a foreign legion will mostly give us some kind of PR coup, that people from all over the world can join this new entity and thereby demonstrate their commitment to American values and goals in the wide world.
This is questionable, I think, for reasons that should be obvious. The French may applaud our copying their concept on day one, but will surely still vote against us when they feel the need to when the chips are down in any major international body. Others will be equally unimpressed; bin Laden and his ilk will present us with another video tape about how weak America has become that they must contract out their fighting prowess. But even if we were to get plaudits around the world instead of sneering, doing something b/c of world opinion is a very poor basis for any undertaking.
So what will a US foreign legion contribute that a single division from any well-intentioned and well-trained ally cannot? And if no ally steps up to the plate in a future conflict, what of it? A legion brigade or two will not be trusted by any serious combatant commander in the field with any major job. And even if a small legion force were someday to be so trusted, the US military’s combat forces do not need the help. If you think they do, tell us why.
Nowadays, the American public has a very low tolerance for wars in which Americans die. The Freedom Legion offers a solution to this problem. Also, the US military labors under an absurd burden of lawyers-in-uniform. The Freedom Legion could be JAG-free — and thus free to do what needs to be done in a war. Finally, apart from the occasional “Shock! Horror! Atrocity!” story, the MSM probably wouldn’t put much effort into covering the activities of the Freedom Legion: MSM consumers, left or right, are mostly interested in what Americans are up to, not foreigners.
michael j totten ” know quite a few people from the Arab world alone who would love to sign on to something like this,”
I ‘ve got an idea. how abuot letting people from the arab world sign up for the IDF?
I ‘ve got an idea. how abuot letting people from the arab world sign up for the IDF?
They are permitted to do so. The IDF drafts Druze and many Bedouin Arabs enlist in the IDF. In addition, many Christian Lebanese have found refuge in Israel and have fought along side the IDF in the SLA prior Ehud Barak’s abandonment of them.
I mean people from like saudi arabia, yemen, Iran. then give them citizenship
As others have noted, a mercenary “legion” is not necessary to make armed service for the United States possible to foreigners. Legal aliens can join our armed forces already, and accelerate the path to citizenship thereby. There are restrictions on which MOSes they can serve in before they become citizens, due to clearance and personnel reliability requirements. (We continue to have a special relationship with the Philippines, which allows their citizens to join the US armed forces and serve to retirement, with the option but not requirement to become US citizens. As long as they decline US citizenship, the MOS restrictions apply to their service. I served with many Filipinos who performed distinguished and indispensable service.)
The French Foreign Legion has indeed served with distinction in many operations. As mercenaries, however, they are not suitable for decisive combat as it is waged today. Even in Europe’s “limited war” age, there were limits to the utility of mercenaries, as military leaders from Marlborough to Frederick the Great had reason to observe. International mercenaries are not there to die for your flag.
They are also not the right force for the population-contact element of counterinsurgency. The Petraeus “clear and hold” tactics work because the American soldiers who patrol Iraqi streets and work alongside Iraqi security forces are, officially, American representatives of the President of the United States. These soldiers may be anonymous to American news audiences, but they are not so to Iraqis: they ARE the face of America. This role can’t be filled by foreign mercenaries — who, for one thing, will be less willing than national troops to operate under the sometimes-dicey ROE deemed appropriate and necessary by the theater commander.
We can’t pay a foreign legion to either die in our place or go nation-building for us. Both of those activities, involving decisive combat and the execution of national political will, require Americans. There are other services a mercenary legion could perform, which as some here observe are already performed, in part, by US security contractors. Why it would be better to contract those services to foreign mercenaries is not clear. (The US security contractors can hire foreigners anyway, and in fact do.)
I think for most who object to the idea of an American foreign legion, it ultimately boils down to a visceral opposition to the idea of a USA that acts like an imperial power: envisioning a perpetual need for “military operations other than war” — the kind mercenaries are suited for — and hiring foreigners to fill that need, with the implications of that about how we see such foreigners versus our own citizens. Comparisons with France, a former colonial power past her prime who no longer shapes her own security environment, are unpersuasive. The US is not France; we are not rearguarding a minor colonial legacy, but seeking, wherever we deploy forces, to shape not only our own security environment, but de facto that of the entire world.
Max may consider this the weakest argument of all, but I think it may be the strongest one for many Americans: that is, that if WE are not willing to send our own sons and daughters to fight, then we should not be in the fight at all. There is no question that the use of mercenaries made both Imperial Rome and the warring states of early-modern Europe less selective, rather than more, about the occasions for resorting to arms. I am no friend of bad compromises, but it is never an advantage, to either peace or security, for a great nation to consider it a small thing to deploy armed force. It SHOULD be hard to make the decision to do so — because there is no such thing as exerting force both successfully, and on the cheap. I note that France can seem to do so because she inhabits the Pax Americana. We ARE the guarantor of the Pax, precisely because when we deploy force, there is no fallback. If France is driven out of Africa, the world will not change very much. That cannot be said of the US, anywhere.
JE- so you like the idea of tens of thousands of wahabi muslims joining israels army then getting citizenship? for them and their families?
Mr. Boot, for one possible example of how a Foreign Legion for America might be a bad idea, please look at the history of the Spanish Foreign Legion. It was founded in explicit imitation of the French Foreign Legion and for some of the same reasons: to provide a reliable military unit for colonial wars. Formed for foreign wars, it help bring civil war to Spain. The Legion was a key source of military power for the generals whose attempted coup began the Spain Civil War.
J. E. Dyer, above at #24, does an excellent job of dissecting this idea.
lester — your non sequiturs are always good fun, but this one is perplexing. I can’t find even the most tangential connection beyween it and anything I wrote here. Maybe you meant to address it to someone else?
JE- no. I am saying if americans can indiscriminately give citizenship to people who are willing to join their military, why can’t israel? after all they’re both “democracies” aren’t they?
Um, lester — why are you asking me this? Have I said anything at this thread about Israel giving citizenship to foreigners who serve in its military? I suppose I could offer an opinion, but I’ll let the Israelis hash that out.
Hope this helps.
JE- no not really. i still don’t understand why america needs to expand it’s army at the expense of it’s normal immigration standards and at the expense of diluting it’s culture and israel doesn’t. why can’t muslims christians hindus and people from all over the world get israeli citizenship?
As Max Boot knows from my own OPED article in The International Herald Tribune, I am with him all the way on this issue. A Foreign Legion is the only way to keep military end strength up for a Super Power in decline – in essence, slowing that decline by improving her ground defense strength.
The recruitment volunteer pool for an American Foreign Legion certainly exists amongst military age immigrant hopefuls – they should earn their citizenship from 3 years of service. Similarly, captured illegals could be forced to choose between return to their countries of origin, or threee years of service in the Legion with the same citizen guarantees.
Leadership for the Legion could come from former US Army Special Forces officer and NCO vets.
We know that the parents of America’s littlee darlings would rather their neighbors’ daughters come home in body bags than see their fat litle computer geek sons serve, and this is a wasy to make up for that social weakness in America.
Wayne E. Long
COL, USA Special Forces (ret)