The US Army is getting desperate. Having fallen 25 percent short of already reduced recruiting goals last month, it is raising enlistment bonuses to US$40,000 (HK$312,000) in some cases and lowering standards to accept and retain soldiers who would have been turned away in years past. A minor criminal record? No high school diploma? Uncle Sam still wants you.

With combat dragging on in Iraq and plenty of jobs available at home, there aren't enough volunteers. So far, a real crisis has been averted only because the US Army has exceeded its retention goals and kept some troops in uniform past their discharge dates, but it will only get tougher to keep volunteers in uniform if troops are constantly deployed overseas.

There are two obvious, and obviously wrongheaded, solutions to this problem: pull out of Iraq now or institute a draft. The former would hand a victory to terrorists and undo everything that more than 1,700 Americans have given their lives to achieve. The latter option, aside from being a political non-starter, would also dilute the high quality of an all-volunteer force.

I return to a solution I proposed in February: broadening the recruiting base beyond US citizens and permanent, legal residents. Legislation has been drafted to make a modest start in that direction.

The proposed Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is targeted at children of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States for more than five years but not born there.

They would get legal status and become eligible for citizenship if they graduate from high school, stay out of trouble and either attend college for two years or serve two years in the armed forces. This bill failed last year in the US Senate to get a floor vote. It is likely to be reintroduced soon.

The DREAM Act is a great idea, but I would go further and offer citizenship to anyone, anywhere on the planet, willing to serve a set term in the US military. America could model a Freedom Legion after the French Foreign Legion. Or it could allow foreigners to join regular units after a period of English-language instruction, if necessary.

When I first made this suggestion, I got a lot of positive responses but also some scathing critiques. A retired army sergeant wrote (expletives deleted): ``Are you out of your mind? The last thing we need in our military is a bunch of illegal immigrants serving in combat operations for a country to which they are not culturally bonded!'' But there is no better way to build that bond than through military training and discipline. Drill sergeants have been forging cohesive units out of disparate elements since the days of the Roman legions.

In the past, the US military had many more foreigners than it does today. (During the Civil War, at least 20 percent were immigrants. Now it's 7 percent.) The British army, among many others, has also made good use of noncitizens. Nepalese Gurkhas still fight and die for the Union Jack despite not being ``culturally bonded'' to it. No doubt they would do the same for the Stars and Stripes.

Some critics invoke the specter of mercenaries leading to the fall of the United States as they supposedly led to the fall of Rome. That's a misreading of Roman history. As classicist Victor Davis Hanson points out, by the 1st century AD, the legions ``were mostly non-Italian and mercenary, and the empire still endured for nearly another 500 years.'' If only the Pax Americana were to last half as long! Other critics think it's repugnant to ask foreigners to face dangers that citizens won't. But there is always an element of unfairness in war. Unless you institute a truly universal draft, some will always be more at risk than others.

Besides, the US already makes ample use of mercenaries. It relies on tens of thousands of contractors in Iraq, Colombia and elsewhere, many of them not Americans. They would be a lot more useful if they were in uniform and subject to military orders.

Would foreigners sign up to fight for Uncle Sam? I don't see why not, because so many people are desperate to move there. Serving a few years in the military would seem a small price to pay, and it would establish beyond a doubt that they are the kind of motivated, hardworking immigrants the United States wants.

Anyway, what's the alternative? US$100,000 signing bonuses? Recruiting felons?

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Max Boot is Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York