The Basing Mess

In all four examples given (Guam, Germany, South Korea, and Connecticut) things look gloom for the civilians involved in the military opening/closing of U.S. military bases. In South Korea, we see the example helpless villagers having their prime farmlands taken away for the creation of the base, and their own government ignores their cries for help. In Guam, the island is watching as the U.S. military makes it a strategic priority, and over time will have so much influence that the economy will focus around bases.

It is evident that the problem does not end when bases finally do close because even though the soldiers leave, the land is left stagnant in most examples of base closure. In the article on Stratford, it seemed as if Apuzzo was beginning to argue that base closure caused many small businesses to go under because their main clientele had vanished. However, it clear that the town is in trouble because the land has not returned to the community in order to create houses, factories, etc. The toxic waste that must be cleaned up by the military before it turns the land over, leaves the land stagnant for quite awhile because their is enormous cost in the cleanup job that the military is not hurrying up on spending. In Germany, it is not only detrimental to the community that the soldiers will be leaving, many that are intwined into the community through both the economy and even marriage, but it hurts the town because they are left with old barracks that have no functional use to benefit the town.

When looking at the problems of base opening/closing, the military is not looking at the big picture. In every case there should be resources set aside in order to not only enter in a rush, but to leave just as quickly. When they hurry into a community, they are very disruptive to the economy. Once they have been there, and the people have become dependent on the military influence, it is not fair for them to just get up and leave without a clean exit strategy. This practice puts several families in jeopardy.

Diego Garcia/ Veteran's Day

After reading the blips on Diego Garcia, and then watching the documentary in class I was astonished by the difference between the two sources. On one hand it's business as usual from the U.S. and British governments. On the other, lives have been mercilessly ruined and their history has been covered up. I know that it should not come to a surprise anymore seeing some of the atrocities taking place in order to police the world, after all, looking from the perspective of the British and U.S. government involvement in the situation it makes much more sense to maintain an extremely strategic base than to please a handful of colored British subjects (I find it hard to call them citizens because they have never been treated like them by their government). The scary thing about this situation is that neither government can coverup what happened to the islanders anymore because the truth has been exposed in the British court system; however, they are able to treat the matter like a 'ping-pong match' and keep pressure off of each other from actually doing something. Sadly, I never see these people winning the fight and returning to their native island. Something that should be so easy to accomplish.

On an entirely different note I wanted to make a point of thanking our Veterans on this day. Having a militarization blog, I thought this would be a fitting place to start. Despite all the criticism we lay on military leadership, politicians, and corporations that are involved in the militarization of daily life, I believe it is important to make a distinction for those that have served our country honorably. Many people have made extremely large sacrifices for this country. Despite how popular or legitimate their mission was, they still went out there and performed their orders for what they believed would benefit all of us, not just themselves. As veterans return from Iraq, we should hold them in our highest regards. Many of these people are some of our own peers, and they will be living the rest of their lives alongside us when they return, dealing with memories that we as students cannot even comprehend. Remember that they did not get us into this war, but they were the ones who stood up to the call when their country asked that of them.

Okinawa Reading

In Governor Ota's Message to the JPRI Conference on Security and Stability in East Asia, there were many troubling issues that came to light. The first and most important issue that I took out of this reading is the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. It must be noted that the United States is not the only actor in taking advantage of Okinawa, but Japan needs to take as much or even more of the blame. From the facts given by Governor Ota, it appears that Japan is treating Okinawa absolutely horrible by making them take the brunt of U.S. military bases. By doing so, Okinawan's are living drastically below the standard of life compared to the rest of Japan. The unemployement rate is double, the average income is 30% less, and they cannot develope their island because 75% of U.S. bases in Japan are located on their island which accounts for 1% of Japanese land. Furthermore, dealing with the loud noise and cases of military crime, hold these people victim to unpleasant living conditions. Although it would make sense that the economy was bolstered by having U.S. military presense on the island like in the case of San Diego, in fact the military only supports 5% of the local economy. However, I find this number to be extremely low, and wonder about its accuracy.

Secondly, yes, the United States does have blame in the situation. How much of a presense do we still need in Asia? With North Korea coming off the list of Terror State's recently, and China becoming more and more interwoven in our economy, can the threat of turmoil be reaccessed? Even if the military is forced to remain in the region, and therefore be subjected to Okinawa because Japan refuses to allow the U.S. to change bases to other islands, what can the U.S. do to help the native people and give back to the community? Afterall, the best way to win support for the U.S. cause is not to enforce our rule, but to help live alongside others more efficiently.

Finally, I believe that Japan had the largest military budget in Asia, but I am not quite sure. If they are the dominant presense in Asia, what kind of effect do Japanese bases have on their own people? Is it better or worse than America's impact on Okinawa?

Okinawa is a small island with two large enemies in which they cannot defeat. In order to win back their island, and return to their peaceful existence they must first take on Japan, their country that has left them behind. By winning more support in the Diet, then they will be able to pressure the United States to either consolidate or move their bases out of Okinawa. I understand the importance to have military presense in Asia, and Okinawa being such a good tactical point makes it a key military objective. However, they should not be punished for being subjected to this military island, subsistence should be given to these people for putting up with unwelcome guests.

Geopolitics of Energy

Michael T. Klare's article, 'The New Geopolitics of Energy', really caught my attention. Not only did he predict the Georgian/Russian conflict that took place back in August, but he also sheds some light on the upcoming election. He describes foreign policy changing from a look at ideology (Cold War politics) to one that is now determined by raw materials, many which are being taken from unstable countries.

It is no coincidence that our main competitors in this new military plan involve Russia and China, our two biggest rivals for access and transportation of oil. I believe it was in the Sanders article from Monday that he discussed the U.S. controls the world and its oceans exponentially larger than Great Britain ever did in the 19th Century. Klare adds to this assesment by emphasizing the importance that 90% of world trade and 2/3 of the petroleum is transported by sea. So far this semester it has seemed that the Navy has been left out of discussion when speaking on behalf of specific branches of the military. However, now it is clear to me that the Navy has been one of the most active branches even though fighting has taken place in landlocked countries. This helps stregthen the argument of the MIC, and how we are subsequently using our Navy to protect our world-trade interests. We clearly have the seas dominated, and in places like Georgia it is evident that we have began to butt heads with the Russians over an oil pipeline that runs through a country in which we have both provided military assistance and aid. The question for the future is what will happen in 3rd world African countries when oil supplies begin to deminish? How far will we go to compete against China in order to win over the leaders of unstable African nations that are trying to maintain power?

The Revolving Door

In the last few discussions and readings (especially Barstow), the idea of a revolving door has been brought up, but not focused on enough in my opinion. For those people, such as the retired N.Y.P.D. officer in "Why We Fight", that get discouraged over what the DoD and the Administration is getting away with by blatantly lying to the media, want some help. The only check on this system seems to be the 'watchdog' military analysts that get inside information on how wars are being fought. However, when this watchdog happens to be the product of the same system, their is ultimately no protection to what the federal government is capable of doing. These military analysts in many cases have either had close ties with politicians, corporations, and especially ties to the military where they either know higher-ups or have a fraternal relationship with these men. Also, if the analysts are ever to speak negatively about a DoD situation, they are likely to have their access to special information cutoff, and can easily be replaced by another analyst waiting in the wings for their chance to the privelliged information. In order to fix this system, we need unbiased supervisors helping out in the gathering of this information. Background checks on ties to anything that would influnce the MIC should be gathered and influence who gets determine what is really going on in Washington. Perhaps it is far too late now in Iraq, but before the next big project undertaken by Washington involving the DoD, the media needs to be given a better perspective for the American people and the world. We should not have to find out years later that thousands of people died and billions of dollars were wasted for reasons that ended up being apparantly untrue.

The Real Matrix

Alright, I get the point. The DoD uses a lot of corporations to handle several aspects of daily military operations. Turse went above and beyond in his descriptive story of Rick, the average American, and how most of his life is intertwined with military influence. It was quite revealing early on in the article that if you take part in the economy, then you are using products that are also doing business with the military. Perhaps this is because the Pentagon is making the military more adaptive to civilian life, as opposed to creating a foreign life. Therefore, military personnel can find comforts in their brand name soap, candybars, and coffee when they enlist for the military.

The thing that took me by surprise involves Eisenhower's MIC speech. With the way the economy/military was transforming during his time period, the DoD should be on pace to using $200 million. The problem is that this number has increased to $1 trillion. If he believed there was a problem 50 years ago, then he would most certainly find the country in a state of crisis today. Maybe we have lost sight of this problem because the military is using 'cool' corporations, things that we ourselves are familiar with using. Afterall, it looks a lot different to the taxpayer when they are paying corporations such as FedEx and SaraLee then it is when using Bechtel or Lockheed Martin.

service for citizenship

In one of the scences from the movie, "Gangs of New York", young Irishmen are unboarding from the boats that brought them over, and before setting foot on American soil they are handed a gun to fight for the North in the Civil War. After reading the first line of Moscoco's article, this image immediately came to my head. In a time where the process of citizenship is a long, uncertain battle, immigrants are given a chance to ease this process. The only dilemma is that this shortcut comes through the U.S. Armed Forces.

When looking at the Pros and Cons of exchanging U.S. citizenship for a lengthy tour of duty in the armed forces, I think it's best to look at the way things are going right now. It is easy to say that the military is already taking advantage of most of its new recruits. Most new members targeted are people who have few other options to better their life as they become adults, and turn to the armed forces in order to get themselves out of a worse situation. I find the idea of non-citizens serving our country as an honorable task for that individual, and I see no wrong in them taking advantage of the system in order to achieve their ultimate goal.

However, I am extremely critical of the U.S. intentions as this plan picks up support. In both articles the word 'mercenary' was loosely thrown around in order to explain what these non-citizens would become. By looking at the current state of the U.S. strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Blackwater mercenaries are given a large portion of the more dangerous, high casualty missions. This helps the military from dealing with bad press that might sway public opinion. it is much more likely to read about enlisted soldiers dying than our mercenaries. The point of this being is that I fear these non-citizen soldiers are going to be used in higher risk situations. Adding to this dilemma is the fact that they are completely left out of the democratic process until they finish their service in the military and gain citizenship. Until that time they are forced to fight wars without a say in the matter. It is stated best by Steven Camarota when he says, "One of the reasons you don't engage in adventurous wars is that 'we don't want our boys killed....but if it's someone else's boys, it changes the dynamic." It's a good idea to help these people become citizens of a country they undoubtedly love the oppurtunity it provides, but they should be treated as valuable as citizens until their service has expired.