1. U.S. Military Will Offer Path to Citizenship
“The Army will gain in its strength in human capital,” General Freakley said, “and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream.”
...
Recruiters’ work became easier in the last few months as unemployment soared and more Americans sought to join the military. But the Pentagon, facing a new deployment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, still has difficulties in attracting doctors, specialized nurses and language experts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15immig.html
2. consider the Roman's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
Socii
Further information: Foederati, Social War, and Lex Julia
Socii or Foederati were citizens of states which had treaty obligations with Rome, typically agreements under which certain legal rights of the state's citizens under Roman law were exchanged for agreed upon levels of military service, i.e. the Roman magistrates had the right to levy soldiers for the Roman legions from those states. However, Foederati states that had at one time been conquered by Rome were exempt from payment of tribute to Rome due to their treaty status.
3. in light Joseph Tainter laws - how does this relate to collapse?
- why are volunteer numbers down?
- the return on the investment of volunteering for the army is no longer sufficient for us citizens
- so US citizens will no longer fight for the republic because they don't support what it stands for?
- are these new recruits not mercenaries?
- Tainter's the collapse of complex societies - page 144 - "the increases in military strength... had to be supported by an already depleted population."
- historically hasn't it been impossible for a mercenary forces to beat freedom fighters?
-- the greeks fighting for the egyptians
-- the germanic tribes fighting for the romans
-- perhaps the hessians fighting for the british
- http://www.artwoo.com/article/the-roman-army-in-the-late-empire
The empire had now expanded and subjugated many territories and people, and with that came the recruitment of non-Romans into the army. It helped appease and control the newly won areas by offering citizenship at the end of a military career.
...
This in the end, as we will see, directly contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.
>From the start of the empire to the end, the army steadily became more culturally diversified. By the third and fourth century, the army increasingly relied on employed barbarians and allies to do the fighting, instead of training the vast population of Roman citizens. The army became more of a “mercenary” body, as the number of allied troops outnumbered the Roman ones. This diluted the once proud and powerful army into a mixture of unreliable troops.
“The Army will gain in its strength in human capital,” General Freakley said, “and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream.”
...
Recruiters’ work became easier in the last few months as unemployment soared and more Americans sought to join the military. But the Pentagon, facing a new deployment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, still has difficulties in attracting doctors, specialized nurses and language experts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15immig.html
2. consider the Roman's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
Socii
Further information: Foederati, Social War, and Lex Julia
Socii or Foederati were citizens of states which had treaty obligations with Rome, typically agreements under which certain legal rights of the state's citizens under Roman law were exchanged for agreed upon levels of military service, i.e. the Roman magistrates had the right to levy soldiers for the Roman legions from those states. However, Foederati states that had at one time been conquered by Rome were exempt from payment of tribute to Rome due to their treaty status.
3. in light Joseph Tainter laws - how does this relate to collapse?
- why are volunteer numbers down?
- the return on the investment of volunteering for the army is no longer sufficient for us citizens
- so US citizens will no longer fight for the republic because they don't support what it stands for?
- are these new recruits not mercenaries?
- Tainter's the collapse of complex societies - page 144 - "the increases in military strength... had to be supported by an already depleted population."
- historically hasn't it been impossible for a mercenary forces to beat freedom fighters?
-- the greeks fighting for the egyptians
-- the germanic tribes fighting for the romans
-- perhaps the hessians fighting for the british
- http://www.artwoo.com/article/the-roman-army-in-the-late-empire
The empire had now expanded and subjugated many territories and people, and with that came the recruitment of non-Romans into the army. It helped appease and control the newly won areas by offering citizenship at the end of a military career.
...
This in the end, as we will see, directly contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.
>From the start of the empire to the end, the army steadily became more culturally diversified. By the third and fourth century, the army increasingly relied on employed barbarians and allies to do the fighting, instead of training the vast population of Roman citizens. The army became more of a “mercenary” body, as the number of allied troops outnumbered the Roman ones. This diluted the once proud and powerful army into a mixture of unreliable troops.
Comments