at Dr Rich Swier

EDITORS NOTE: As President-elect Trump and Secretary of Defense nominee James Mattis look at growing and modernizing the U.S. military we have decided to re-publish this column originally appearing in The Washington Examiner on October 30th, 2014 under the title “The case for surrogate forces.” It was written by our contributor Gary Berntsen, a retired Senior CIA Operations Officer and Chief of Station. As the new administration looks at expanding our military, the establishment and use of surrogate forces to defeat ISIS and other radical Islamic organizations is worthy of consideration as a low cost, high value, low risk force multiplier. Some have suggested that it would be better to recruit from the large population of displaced Muslims in areas such as Syria to serve in a surrogate military force to be used in the Middle East rather than grant them refugee status in Europe and the U.S. Fight in place for their homeland trumps uprooting families and moving them to a strange land and culture. This column is reprinted with permission.

Despite President Obama’s high hopes of withdrawing behind the castle walls, the United States is going to be playing a major role in the Middle East and South Asia for some time. The rise of Islamic State extremists, who exploited the U.S. troop withdrawal to seize control of territory in Iraq and Syria, is all the proof we need of that reality.

At the same time, there are serious questions as to how prepared the United States is for this ongoing mission. We continue to boast the best-trained, most professional and effective military force in world history, but our nation’s leaders show little stomach for sending or allowing that force to do its job.

That’s certainly the case in Iraq, where the Obama administration has pledged to defeat ISIS, while at the same time ruling out the use of U.S. ground forces to achieve that goal. This leaves a dangerous gap between what needs to be done in the Middle East, and what can be done.

To bridge that gap, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest dispatching “mercenary forces” to Iraq on behalf of the United States. This is a profoundly irresponsible idea that would both fail to achieve our strategic objectives and send the wrong message about U.S. power.

french foreign legion

The French Foreign Legion was created in 1831 and is still active. It was created from the similar idea of a surrogate force. (AP/Claude Paris)

But there is another way: Using surrogate forces, composed of recruits from the Islamic world, to serve in a U.S.-sponsored mission to provide basic security in Iraq and other locations where the United States intervenes.

Here’s how it would work: The United States could establish and train a surrogate corps of light infantry, combat engineers and military police (at a strength of roughly 20,000) dubbed “The Freedom Corps.” Led by U.S. officers, this corps would be responsible for counterinsurgency operations.

The benefits of this type of arrangement should be obvious. A local force that speaks the local language could more readily plug into local customs and traditions, while alleviating the sense of living under a foreign occupying army.

But The Freedom Corps would still have the operational benefits of U.S. leadership. This surrogate force would fall under the authority of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., which would give its members the training, direction, structure and access to intelligence they need to succeed.

This would be far more cost-effective than maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq for the long haul. It costs around $1 million per year to keep a single U.S. solider in the field. But insurgencies like the Taliban or ISIS spend only a fraction of that sum. We desperately need a more cost-conscious solution to the long-term challenge of providing security in this delicate region.

Surrogate force enlistees could be compensated at a more modest rate (say, around $1,500 per month), which would go a long way toward lifting their families out of poverty. After a designated period of service, perhaps five years, Freedom Corps enlistees could be eligible for U.S. citizenship — a further incentive for enlistment.

Students of military history will likely find that this suggestion sounds familiar. France used a similar model in establishing the French Foreign Legion, launched in 1831 to recruit foreign nationals from around the world to serve under French army officers. The Legion remains active today, intervening earlier this year in Mali.

Likewise, Great Britain built the famed British Gurkha force of soldiers from Nepal along similar lines nearly 200 years ago; more than a quarter-million Gurkhas fought for the Allied cause in World War II. In fact, British Gurkhas have continued to fight and serve in Afghanistan.

Even the United States has a history of using surrogate forces. From 1900 to 1946, the roughly 11,000-man Philippine Scouts, composed of Filipino troops serving under U.S. officers, and fought with honor in the Pacific theater in World War II.

One objection to the Freedom Corps concept is that it may look and feel like a colonial force. And that may be true. But it very likely may be the best way to enhance U.S. power, influence and capability throughout the Islamic world. Given the challenges we face in the region, it’s an idea whose time has come.

RELATED ARTICLE: Surrogate Warfare: The Role of U.S. Army Special Forces