Bill O'Reilly proposed a mercenary army. Re-create a Special Forces unit without the personnel of a Special Forces unit.
Instead:
*The fighters in the O’Reilly Mercenary Army would be recruited by the United States;
*They’d be trained by Special Forces under “strict discipline”;
*They’d number 25,000;
*They’d be English speakers;
*They’d be well compensated.
*Cost over $5+ billion/year (which would be about $200,000 per person)
According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators
The US Foreign legion proposal I had is far better. Here is why:
* Mercenaries (veterans of regular military) have already been used and are still used
* 25,000 Mercs are less than the 40,000 or so that are in ISIS now
Those who criticize the idea of mercenaries as "outsourcing the job of the US military" are idiots or liars.
In December 2009, the Congressional Research Service, which provides background information to members of the United States Congress, announced that the deployment of 30,000 extra U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of "26,000 to 56,000" contractors. This would expand the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in Afghanistan "to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000". The CRS study said contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan in December 2008.
There were 100,000 to 200,000 private military contractors during much of the Iraq war.
I criticize the mercenary idea as something that we know is too expensive and it is something that has been used at large scale.
* I had proposed around 150,000 - 500,000 in a US foreign legion. Much more than the numbers in ISIS that they are going to fight. Pay them about the wage of the French Foreign legion ($20,000/year). Like what was attempted with arming and training the Iraq army but they do not report to Malaki or other corrupt Iraqi officials or leaders. Also, the US makes a permanent commitment to the US foreign legion.
By being over ten times cheaper per soldier means it is affordable to have ten times more soldiers.
* the US already tries to arm and rent foreign armies all the time
- the US tried to train and arm the Iraq army and spent over $25 billion on it. The Iraqi army had officers replaced with political loyalists. The Iraqi army has a massive desertion problem
- the US plans to spend 3+ years and many more billion training up more Iraqis
- the US plans and arm and train some people in Syria
- the US armed and trained a bunch of people in Afghanistan (spending over $26 billion)
The US has spent $710 billion in Afghanistan since 2001.
Read more »![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Instead:
*The fighters in the O’Reilly Mercenary Army would be recruited by the United States;
*They’d be trained by Special Forces under “strict discipline”;
*They’d number 25,000;
*They’d be English speakers;
*They’d be well compensated.
*Cost over $5+ billion/year (which would be about $200,000 per person)
According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators
The US Foreign legion proposal I had is far better. Here is why:
* Mercenaries (veterans of regular military) have already been used and are still used
* 25,000 Mercs are less than the 40,000 or so that are in ISIS now
Those who criticize the idea of mercenaries as "outsourcing the job of the US military" are idiots or liars.
In December 2009, the Congressional Research Service, which provides background information to members of the United States Congress, announced that the deployment of 30,000 extra U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of "26,000 to 56,000" contractors. This would expand the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in Afghanistan "to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000". The CRS study said contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan in December 2008.
There were 100,000 to 200,000 private military contractors during much of the Iraq war.
I criticize the mercenary idea as something that we know is too expensive and it is something that has been used at large scale.
* I had proposed around 150,000 - 500,000 in a US foreign legion. Much more than the numbers in ISIS that they are going to fight. Pay them about the wage of the French Foreign legion ($20,000/year). Like what was attempted with arming and training the Iraq army but they do not report to Malaki or other corrupt Iraqi officials or leaders. Also, the US makes a permanent commitment to the US foreign legion.
By being over ten times cheaper per soldier means it is affordable to have ten times more soldiers.
* the US already tries to arm and rent foreign armies all the time
- the US tried to train and arm the Iraq army and spent over $25 billion on it. The Iraqi army had officers replaced with political loyalists. The Iraqi army has a massive desertion problem
- the US plans to spend 3+ years and many more billion training up more Iraqis
- the US plans and arm and train some people in Syria
- the US armed and trained a bunch of people in Afghanistan (spending over $26 billion)
The US has spent $710 billion in Afghanistan since 2001.
Read more »
