The Billo Battalion

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bill O’Reilly is a warmonger. Nobody who has even occasionally watched him on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” can have any doubts about that. There are hardly any nations in the world where he has not urged American military intervention. Whether Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Mexico, or Russia, O’Reilly may not know all of the subtle geopolitical nuances, but he does know that he wants the American military to take swift and violent action. The United States is currently involved in military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The United States has the largest and most powerful military in the world by far. The United States has nearly 1.5 million active military personnel. It has an arsenal of thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and fighter jets. The United States Navy has 10 aircraft carriers, 72 submarines, and 62 destroyers. The Islamic State has perhaps 30,000 fighters. The Islamic State has few heavy weapons, no air force, and no navy. Yet somehow this insurgent group based in Syria and Iraq has O’Reilly saber rattling on a whole new level. News that the United States planned to spend more than $500 million to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels caused O’Reilly to think outside of his traditionalist box. Instead of suggesting something sane such as refraining from intervening in Syria and Iraq’s civil wars, O’Reilly came up with a very different and very dubious idea.

O’Reilly has recently outlined a plan for a mercenary army of English-speaking “elite fighters” who would be “well paid and well trained.” These mercenaries—who would number 25,000—would be trained in the United States by American Special Forces. Their mission would be to “defeat terrorists all over the world.” This “anti-terror army” would be led by United States and NATO commanders and would follow American military rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions. The “anti-terror army” would be paid for by nations in a coalition that want “intelligence and protection from the U.S.A. and NATO.” According to O’Reilly: “If you don’t pay, you get no help.” Active military personnel—including members of the United States armed forces—would not be eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army.”

The problems with O’Reilly’s proposal are legion. However, here is a short list of the most serious difficulties with the “Billo Battalion.”

1.  Placing this mercenary army outside of the United States armed forces raises questions about how it will function under the Constitution. Would the President or NATO be able to deploy it without authorization from Congress? Would Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution apply or not? This has the potential of giving an already Caesarian Imperial President even greater power.

2. It is ridiculous to believe that any nations in the coalition that O’Reilly imagines will actually pay for the services of the mercenary army. Nations such as Saudi Arabia will continue to assume that the United States will grant it military assistance as required because the precedent has already been set. The Saudis will naturally assume that—like during the Gulf War—when it needs military help, the United States will grant it no questions asked because of American need for oil. Other nations such as Iraq may be unable to pay for such assistance due to poor economies or anti-American public sentiment which could foment a rebellion. At best, this mercenary army would become yet another expensive boondoggle for the American taxpayer.

3. If no active military personnel are eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army,” then where will it find its members? It will either be left with inept fighters, rogues, or foreign terrorists. Or it may lead to the best-trained members of the United States military and allied militaries leaving the service in order to become mercenaries. And what will this do to morale in the United States military? Will brave and selfless American military personnel be pleased that there are these dubious mercenaries earning far more money than they do? American soldiers who have been  grievously wounded serving their country are not getting proper care through VA hospitals. An increasing number of military families are reliant upon food stamps. How would this be fair? Would the American people put up with it? 

4. Why assume that foreign mercenaries will bravely fight against terrorists if things become intense? Shiite soldiers in Iraq simply walked away rather than risk their lives protecting Sunni or Kurd communities against Islamic State insurgents. 

5. Why assume that mercenaries will be likely to follow United States rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions? Mercenaries, such as those from the Academi (the company formerly known as Blackwater) have been accused of all manner of atrocities. So have UN peacekeepers. Even if commanded by capable American or NATO commanders, how can it be certain that these mercenaries will not end up being a real life version of Kurtz’s army from Apocalypse Now?

6. A potentially volatile and likely unconstitutional group of fighters is almost certainly going to create blowback. Innocent civilians will inevitably be killed. Even if such collateral damage is unintentional and even if these mercenaries perform as admirably as American soldiers do, it is still likely to inspire suspicion and hatred among the populace in areas where this “anti-terror army” performs its deadly missions. The last thing that the American people needs is its government going out of its way to create even more enemies who wish to commit terrorist attacks.

7. How can it be guaranteed that some future Commander-in-Chief would not use this “anti-terror” army against the American people? Senator Harry Reid has called supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists.” If some future President decides that the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, PETA, or some other group of Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights are terrorists, what will stop him or her from employing this “anti-terror” army against these “domestic terrorists?” It is unlikely that American soldiers will fire upon their fellow citizens. However, foreign mercenaries will have few qualms about firing into crowds of American citizens if ordered to do so. Is giving an already tyrannical government a group of vicious Hessians to use against the American people really a good idea?

It is important to Bill O’Reilly that the United States and its President be macho. His self-esteem is apparently so low that he needs the government to knock down any other nation or group that even looks at the nation funny. Such out of control militarism has consequences. It costs blood and treasure, and it creates blowback. O’Reilly’s mercenary army is an even worse idea than those that the host usually has. 

(For a much more detailed critique of the arguments and worldview of Bill O’Reilly, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)