The following text is driven by a sincere loyalty to the institution and a concern for consistency in the functioning of the veterans' associations. It directly addresses a question often avoided: the actual place given to supporters.

This reflection is neither polemical nor iconoclastic. It simply highlights certain contradictions in a discourse that advocates welcoming newcomers while sometimes reducing civic engagement to an essentially material benefit. The argument may be unsettling, but it remains grounded in respect, logic, and a spirit of fraternity.
This text by Antoine is addressed to all those who keep the veterans' associations alive, former legionnaires and supporters alike, and invites a clear-sighted, open, and honest reading, in service of a tradition that can only be preserved by remaining true to its human values.

Louis Perez y Cid

By Antoine Marquet, Lieutenant-Colonel (TE-er).

Dear Supporters,
Upon careful reading of the text on "welcoming young former legionnaires," produced as a "working document" by a regional leader of Legion veterans' associations, one constant emerges: the place accorded to non-legionary supporters is simultaneously marginal, distrustful, and fundamentally utilitarian.

Certainly, the text is intended to be reassuring. Supporters are described as "discreet," "friendly," and "useful." But this superficial goodwill never withstands the general argument for long, which invariably reduces them to a single function: to financially and logistically compensate for the erosion of legionary numbers.

In other words, the supporter is acceptable as long as they pay, help out, carry chairs, or serve to balance a budget. But it immediately becomes problematic as soon as it exists in any other form.

This approach raises a fundamental issue.

For how can one, on the one hand, vigorously reject the reduction of the former legionnaire to the status of a "mere civilian," and, on the other hand, reduce committed, loyal, and dedicated civilians to mere accounting entries? The contradiction is blatant.

The text claims to reject the "dilution" of the Legionnaire spirit, but it overlooks a historical fact: the Legion has never existed in isolation. It has always relied on civilian support—families, godmothers, friends—who were neither legionnaires, nor intruders, nor threats, but rather intermediaries, witnesses, and sometimes guardians of memory.
By systematically equating sympathizers with a risk of drift, cronyism, or whimsy, the author reveals less a demand for rigor than a fear of sharing. But an identity that is transmitted only through exclusion ultimately diminishes itself.

Even more troubling: the text readily accepts money from supporters while simultaneously contesting their symbolic presence. This dissociation between material contribution and moral recognition is neither fair nor faithful to the spirit of camaraderie it claims to uphold.
If the AALE's true purpose is welcoming, fostering cohesion, and passing on traditions, then it must be acknowledged that some, without having worn the white kepi, nevertheless choose to serve the Legion family with unwavering dedication and loyalty. To consider them merely as a financial resource is not an act of fidelity to tradition—it is an impoverishment of it. Preserving Legion identity is not about building ever-higher walls, but about knowing who we are, firmly enough to welcome others without betraying our own identity.

Some of you who have seen the text in question want to withdraw, feeling quite hurt in your self-esteem.
Do not do so. Ignore this text. The former legionnaires in the associations are the sole judges, and apparently, they do not exclude anyone.