 |
Back
to News
Who Will Serve?
Growing the Military
By JORGE MARISCAL
CounterPunch
In late December 2006, the Bush administration
reversed its previous position and agreed to a permanent expansion
of the Army and Marine Corps. In reality, the size of the two "ground
services" has grown steadily since 2001 when Congress approved
a temporary increase of 30,000 to the Army and authorized additional
increases to the Army and Marines in 2005 and 2006. The current
proposal would make these increases permanent and by 2012 achieve
the objective of an active-duty Army of 542,400 and a Marine Corps
of 190,000.
In their public statements, Pentagon officials claimed that finding
the bodies to reach these goals would not be difficult. Increased
bonuses, massive publicity campaigns, and appeals to patriotism
would be enough to attract volunteers, they argued.
Lesser-known programs such as the Army GED Plus Enlistment Program
in which applicants without high school diplomas are allowed to
enlist while they complete a high school equivalency certificate
are expected to help (interestingly, the GED Plus Enlistment Program
is available only in inner city areas). The Army's recent fudging
of entrance requirements to accept an increased percentage of recruits
with minor criminal records may also raise enlistment numbers.
Given the prospect of a prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq, however,
the Pentagon's optimistic predictions about increasing the size
of the ground services by making minor adjustments to existing recruiting
practices may not pan out. In anticipation of difficult days ahead
for recruiters, no sooner had Bush announced his decision than conservative
think tanks began to recycle proposals about recruiting foreigners
into the U.S. military.
In a recent Boston Globe article, unidentified Army sources reported
that Pentagon officials and Congress are investigating "the
feasibility of going beyond U.S. borders to recruit soldiers and
Marines." Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, Thomas
Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, and Max Boot of the
Council on Foreign relations cited historical precedents for using
foreign troops. Since at least 2005 Boot has been recommending the
establishment of "recruiting stations along the U.S.-Mexico
border" as a way to solve the problems of military manpower
and illegal immigration.
But the fact that several sources in the Globe article, including
spokesmen for the Army and the Latino advocacy group National Council
for La Raza (NCLR), expressed disagreement with proposals to recruit
foreign nationals means that other more feasible options may begin
to surface.
A likely scenario is that the Pentagon will focus on one specific
sector of the undocumented population--foreign nationals raised
and educated in the United States. According to the Urban Institute,
every year approximately 60,000 undocumented immigrants or children
of immigrants (who have lived in the United States five years or
longer) graduate from U.S. high schools. By marketing the military
to this group, problems associated with the recruitment of foreigners
such as poor English language skills and low educational levels
could be alleviated.
So far military recruiters have limited their efforts to the pursuit
of citizens and permanent residents (green card holders). It is
a little-known fact, however, that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 amended current legal statutes by allowing
military service secretaries to waive citizenship and residency
requirements "if such Secretary determines that the enlistment
of such person is vital to the national interest" (U.S. Code
Title 10, Chapter 31, §504: 2006).
Is the DREAM Act the Pentagon's Dream
Too?
If the Pentagon were to decide to exercise
its new prerogative and begin to recruit undocumented youth in order
to grow the Army and Marines, the most obvious selling point would
be permanent residency and eventual citizenship. This in fact is
one of the little-known aspects of the DREAM Act, legislation that
would grant conditional residency to most undocumented high school
graduates and permanent residency in exchange for the successful
completion of two years of college or two years of military service.
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July
10, 2006, Under Secretary of Defense David Chu said: "According
to an April 2006 study from the National Immigration Law Center,
there are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien young
adults who entered the U.S. at an early age and graduate from high
school each year, many of whom are bright, energetic and potentially
interested in military service...Provisions of S. 2611, such as
the DREAM Act, would provide these young people the opportunity
of serving the United States in uniform."
More recently, Lt. Col. Margaret Stock of the U.S. Army Reserve
and a faculty member at West Point told a reporter that the DREAM
Act could help recruiters meet their goals by providing a "highly
qualified cohort of young people" without the unknown personal
details that would accompany foreign recruits. "They are already
going to come vetted by Homeland Security. They will already have
graduated from high school," she said. "They are prime
candidates."
The lure of citizenship is already a tool for recruiting green card
holders, especially because of expedited naturalization procedures
put in place for military personnel in 2002. In San Diego, for example,
recruiters have told permanent residents "I can help you get
citizenship" when in fact the military has no input into the
final granting or denial of citizenship.
Although exact numbers are difficult to ascertain, roughly 20% of
legal residents in the military who have applied for naturalization
since late 2001 have been denied citizenship. This suggests that
military service carries no guarantee that permanent residents will
be granted the one benefit for which they probably enlisted and
for which they may be forced to risk their life.
Other anecdotes recount recruiters threatening that the immigration
status of recruits and their family would be affected should the
recruit try to back out of an enlistment agreement. More devious
recruiters have used the law requiring undocumented youth to register
for Selective Service as a way to convince non-English speaking
parents that there is obligatory military service in the United
States.
The expansion of the recruiting pool to include the undocumented
would be a Recruiting Command's dream and may be the only way for
the Pentagon to increase the size of the Army and Marines Corps.
A 2006 study by the Migration Policy Institute calculated that passage
of the DREAM Act "would immediately make 360,000 unauthorized
high school graduates aged 18 to 24 eligible for conditional legal
status [and] that about 715,000 unauthorized youth between ages
5 and 17 would become eligible sometime in the future."
Ironically, nativist and restrictionist groups as well as anti-militarism
activists will oppose the recruitment of the undocumented although
for completely different reasons. Organizations such as National
Council for La Raza (NCLR) that oppose the recruitment of foreigners
would most likely support a vehicle for recruiting undocumented
graduates from U.S. high schools. In May 2006, NCLR praised the
passage of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (Senate Bill
2611) that included a DREAM Act provision.
While the DREAM Act may facilitate access to college for a small
percentage of these undocumented students, in many cases other factors
will militate against the college option. Given the difficulty undocumented
youth have in affording college tuition, the pressure on them to
make financial contributions to extended families, and the tendency
among many to adopt uncritical forms of patriotism based on "gratitude,"
military not college recruiters may be the ones who benefit the
most.
As one undocumented student wrote
to me:
"I was brought to America [from Mexico]
when I was 12. I am 21 now and I am only going to college because
in the state of Illinois I pay in-state tuition despite being illegal.
I would serve in the military if I was given an opportunity to do
so and DIE for America if necessary. Shouldn't I be able to be legal?"
Military manpower needs, limited economic and educational opportunity,
and the desire for social acceptance could transport immigrants
and their children to the frontlines of future imperial misadventures
such as the quagmire in Iraq.
Jorge Mariscal is a Vietnam veteran and director of the Chicano-Latino
Arts and Humanities Program at the University of California, San
Diego. He is a member of Project YANO (San Diego). Visit his blog.
|