June 12, 2012:  The Australian military has had a very difficult time recruiting qualified people for the last decade. Years of low unemployment in Australia (partly because China is buying so many raw materials) has caused a shortage of engineering and technical specialists and reliable skilled people of all sorts. So for the last six years the Australian armed forces has sought military veterans, especially from similar English speaking countries like Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States. All five foreign nations share a common language and, in general, culture with Australia. Moreover, veterans from these foreign nations have often gone through similar security vetting. The recruiting offers are being sweetened with quick granting of Australian citizenship, often as little as three months. But for all that effort Australia has only attracted 726 foreign recruits in the last six years. Some required signing bonuses of nearly $200,000 to make the move. The foreigners amounted to about one percent of the troops. The Australian military took some heat from the media for this but justified it by pointing out that the foreigners being recruited often had essential technical skills and that no Australians with equivalent capabilities were willing to join, even with a big bonus.

Moreover, Australia is not the only nation currently seeking foreign recruits because no locals are available. Russia, for example, has a fundamental problem in that few Russian men are willing to join, even at good pay rates. Efforts to recruit women and foreigners have not made up for this. The Russian military has an image problem that just won't go away. This resulted in the period of service for conscripts being lowered to one year (from two) in 2008. That was partly to placate the growing number of parents who were encouraging, and assisting, their kids in avoiding military service.

Nevertheless, Russia is making it easier for foreigners to join. Recruits still must be able to speak Russian, have no criminal record, and meet physical and educational standards but other than that, anyone is welcome to sign up for five years as a contract (non-conscript) soldier. This didn't bring in a lot of new people but every little bit helps. The navy and air force are particularly short of technically qualified personnel and don't care if the new guys speak with an accent. Currently, only a few hundred foreigners are serving, most from countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. But there are also a few from Germany and Israel (where a lot of Russians had immigrated to in the past 30 years).

The most successful recruiter of foreigners have been the United States, which currently has about 50,000 non-citizens in service (out of some 2.2 million active duty and reserve troops, about 2.2 percent of all troops). The navy, not the army, has the largest number (nearly half). That's something of a navy tradition, as hiring foreigners to serve on U.S. warships is a custom that goes back over a century. Currently, the proportion of foreigners (about two percent) in the U.S. military is historically low. It's been much higher in the past, often reaching 25 percent or more. This caused alarm, then as now, but there were never a lot of problems with uncertain loyalties.

In the last decade some senior American officers suggested recruiting more foreigners. Not just non-citizens with green cards but foreigners who are not residents of the United States. This brought forth protests from those opposed to, well, whatever. Historically, the American military has usually had more foreigners in the ranks than it does now. During the American Civil War about twenty percent of the Union Army was foreign born troops. There were entire divisions of Irish, Germans, or Scandinavians. For the rest of the 20th century, the all-volunteer military continued to have a higher (than today) percentage of foreigners. Recruiting foreigners would enable the army to get more highly capable recruits and ones with needed foreign language and cultural awareness skills. Naturally, they would have to speak acceptable English, just as resident foreigners in the United States or citizens from Puerto Rico must. The American military pay and benefits are competitive with U.S. civilian occupations but to most foreigners, these pay levels are astronomical. The risk has usually been low. For example only about one in a thousand foreign born volunteers died in Iraq or Afghanistan. All that and you get to become a citizen of the United States after your four year enlistment is up. The only question was which line would be longer at American embassies, the one for visas or the one for military recruiting?

And then there is Britain. Two centuries ago Gurkhas were first recruited into the British Indian army, not the British army. After India became independent in 1947, they too recruited Gurkhas for Indian infantry units. But service in the British army was considered a better deal. Britain has long recruited foreigners into its army and navy because there has always been a shortage of British citizens willing to serve. Currently, Gurkhas comprise about two percent of British troops.

Then there is the French Foreign Legion, which is supposed to be nothing but foreigners (except for the officers). But many French join, claiming to be from the French speaking parts of Belgium. No matter, if otherwise qualified the "Belgians" are signed up. Currently, Foreign Legionnaires comprise about two percent of French troops.

In Italy the Vatican (a small part of Rome that is an independent country controlled by the Roman Catholic Church) gets most of its security forces from Catholic areas of Switzerland. This is the Swiss Guard. While the French Foreign Legion dates from the 19th century, Swiss have been serving as foreign mercenaries since the 15th century. But this sort of thing disappeared in Switzerland as better economic opportunities developed in and mercenaries became less popular. Sending Swiss mercenaries to serve the pope, however, continues to be popular.