a new kind of soldier?

Dear Wally:

Got any ideas about the state, mission and recruitment issues surrounding the military?

A new kind of US global soldier?

Let’s say the United States creates an International Guard military branch (USIG). This military branch will be held to the same elite combat logistics and intel standards as the current armed forces (Army Navy Air Force, Marines). USIG will have active duty troops as well as reservists. The mission will primarily be international peace-keeping, and to guarantee a safe environment for disaster relief, anti-corruption, and international democratic support (safe, fair elections) etc.

USIG soldiers will be able to satisfy their desire to serve their country, serve a focused democratic determination internationally, help alleviate global suffering and serve their conscience. The US Gov. will swiftly and massively deploy these trained troops and support resources where and when it deems necessary (Darfur), but USIG troops will mainly supplement the UN peace keeping forces with US congressional approval.

The USIG will take pressure off the US Military and National Guard leaving them to focus on conflicts of strategic international geo- political significance and domestic issues, respectively.

Tax payers will bear the cost of the new division, and will be given the opportunity to donate on their federal tax returns, knowing that of $20 donated, for example, exactly $20 will be earmarked specifically for this global humanitarian force. Americans will be able to volunteer and receive Federal tax credits as well as stipends for active duty and reservist training.

While primarily a military instrument, with training and equipment commensurate with other branches, the USIG will also draw heavily on quasi-civilian expertise from its reservists, such as doctors, disaster relief experts, construction workers, engineers, architects, planners, lawyers, diplomats, students etc. Corporations (Caterpillar, Home Depot, General Motors, Walmart etc.) will also be able to contribute resources and funding in exchange for tax credit and goodwill. Universities will be able to contribute human resources and technology.

But why bother at all with the USIG?

Because most Americans want to be able to help end suffering in the world and I bet most would be willing to pay for it if they knew it was going to purely humanitarian causes.

Why not just use the US military for peacekeeping missions?

Because the US Military is under resourced and focused more on geo-political objectives. Rwandan genocide (500,000 dead) happened under our noses in the 1990s. Darfur (200,000 dead already) is currently happening. It is clear that administrations (and the UN) have no ability to move swiftly and effectively. They may want to, but they don’t/wont. The US will not intervene because we do not have the troops or resources to spare. The UN is under resourced and uses light arms in self defense only.


The US Military personnel and public are growing weary of a protracted, ill-founded, under-funded, un-winable war in Iraq. Tax payers are upset and see no compelling reason to continue spending money and lives there.
Military recruitment is dwindling. Recruitment standards are being lowered resulting in a downward spiral. (Who wants to get put in harm’s way for no good reason and dubious chances for success?) Future military talent currently looks elsewhere for careers. Talented civilians who want to help have nowhere to turn.

An armed US peace-keeping force will return US to a position of global respect, so long as it never becomes a tool of imperialism or exploitation. Its ranks will swell with volunteers because it will be fighting the good fight. There is no shortage of suffering that could be alleviated by a ready willing and able force if only one such force existed…

- Ben

Dear Ben-

Sounds good, where do I sign up?