|
|
#1
03-20-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
US Military/Foreign Policy
I've been thinking a lot lately about our nation's military - more specifically, what it's proper/appropriate level is (in terms of manning/expenditure) and what its proper/appropriate role is (defense v. force projection/intervention). A friend forwarded me the following article, the conclusion of which fairly accurately summarizes my beliefs about the past and present situation: (Disclaimer: I don't know a thing about the linked periodical nor its authors. I'm merely using it because it reflects my views reasonably well and I'm feeling lazy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])
U.S. Military Bases and Empire (link to full article) [ QUOTE ] The Globalization of Power The United States, as we have seen, has built a chain of military bases and staging areas around the globe, as a means of deploying air and naval forces to be used on a moment’s notice—all in the interest of maintaining its political and economic hegemony. These bases are not, as was the case for Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, simply integral parts of a colonial empire, but rather take on even greater importance, “in the absence of colonialism.”* The United States, which has sought to maintain an imperial economic system without formal political controls over the territorial sovereignty of other nations, has employed these bases to exert force against those nations that have sought to break out of the imperial system altogether, or that have attempted to chart an independent course that is perceived as threatening U.S. interests. Without the worldwide dispersion of U.S. military forces in these bases, and without the U.S. predisposition to employ them in its military interventions, it would be impossible to keep many of the more dependent economic territories of the periphery from breaking away. U.S. global political, economic, and financial power thus require the periodic exercise of military power. The other advanced capitalist countries tied into this system have also become reliant on the United States as the main enforcer of the rules of the game. The positioning of U.S. military bases should therefore be judged not as a purely military phenomenon, but as a mapping out of the U.S.-dominated imperial sphere and of its spearheads within the periphery. What is clear at present and bears repeating is that such bases are now being acquired in areas where the United States had previously lost much of its “forward presence,” such as in South Asia, the Middle East/Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, or in regions where U.S. bases have not existed previously, such as the Balkans and Central Asia. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the last remaining superpower is presently on a course of imperial expansion, as a means of promoting its political and economic interests, and that the present war on terrorism, which is in many ways an indirect product of the projection of U.S. power, is now being used to justify the further projection of that power. For those who choose to oppose these developments there should be no illusion. The global expansion of military power on the part of the hegemonic state of world capitalism is an integral part of economic globalization. To say no to this form of military expansionism is to say no at the same time to capitalist globalization and imperialism and hence to capitalism itself. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously - what do you think would happen if we embraced the notion that our military should purely be for self-defense? Assume we'd close all our military bases and withdraw all overseas forces (excluding Hawaii, naturally) over a period of 10 or so years and reduce our manning appropriately. We could maintain a strong, modern Navy/Marine Corps to defend our shores and give us the means/infrastructure to project our forces overseas in the event of war (one someone else started without our encouragement). We'd probably cut the Air Force in half mostly due to the closing of overseas bases (the average person in the USAF spends half of each year deployed/overseas). The Army would be reduced dramatically - basically it would just be a core of professional soldiers which could, if necessary, form the foundation for a larger military in the event of world conflict. Keep in mind that this proposal doesn't suggest we fall behind in the arms race - all branches except the Army would remain top-of-the-line - just smaller. (Higher quality, lower quantity - pretty basic.) My other thought was pretty much the opposite - essentially embracing Truman's idea that "we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete protection of our interests and of world peace." (See above linked article.) Internationally speaking, our primary "interest" at this point in history is global capitalism. Given the success we've had at opening up Iraq to capitalism (meaning having a garage sale on Iraq national assets, thereby allowing capitalists to purchase valuable assets at cut-rate prices and reap the profits), shouldn't we wholeheartedly embrace the notion of "Iraqifying" other nations? It certainly can't be argued that this war - like most others - has been a boon for the US economically (the distribution of this increased wealth is another matter entirely). I'm talking about dramatically increasing US military presence abroad. Had we walked into Iraq with twice as many soldiers and Marines, the occupation would surely have proceeded much more effectively with a much lower loss of US life. Essentially - if we're going to follow a foreign policy of spreading democracy and capitalism at the end of a rifle, we should increase our military spending and location to better implement this policy. Thoughts? 
|
|
#2
03-20-2005, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Military/Foreign Policy
This is to both your ideas in turn:
1. Converting to a self-defense military is certainly in the interests of most Americans. About half of discretionary spending, or about 4% of GDP, is devoted to the military and "intelligence." Drastically cutting it would still leave the U.S. with the world's most powerful conventional military and turn fiscal policies from crises into much simpler problems. Few Americans have an interest in maintaining or expanding U.S. military power around the globe. 2. The practical problem of expanding U.S. hegemony is the same problem all empires face: exponential risks and costs coupled with diminishing returns. We're seeing the tip of the iceberg in polls showing the U.S. being regarded everywhere as a growing threat, a new phenomenon. Common sense tells us that we can keep taxes down, address the public spending crisis or use our military to dominate the world, but we can't do all three. Fifty years from now the U.S. could easily be plagued by domestic terrorism and discontent and bogged down in a dozen or so "asymetrical" conflicts where the costs and benefits, espcially to the public, are incapable of reasonable estimation. Entrenched intstitutions engendered by this system, such as foreign elites trying to extort concessions and domestic forces driven by fear of a power vacuum if the U.S. reduces commitments, could preclude any political solution. The system could be forced to continue more or less on autopilot until it breaks down, something like Vietnam policy afer 1967 (when it was clear that costs would exceed any tangible gain), except on a global scale. The increasing inability to control borders, WMD proliferation and international capital flows tend to make crises catastrophic, conceivably not survivable. Every empire in the history of the world has either (1) been crushed by a rival or (2) experienced some point where runaway costs and instability become endemic and ultimately overwhelming, or both. Ours won't be saved by the pretense of spreading "democracy." Nowadays, this really refers more to signs and perceptions of political legitimacy rather than broad-based power. One sees no alarm in the national media about the problem of democratic failure in the U.S. despite obvious crippling defects: the vast majority barely participating while those that do tend to be cynical, confused or deluded. Our system is dominated by elites who don't much care about poular desires. They are not inclined to seriously pursue in countries where they are even less popular. Moreover, domination of other countries by the U.S. does much more to undermine local legitimacy than any demonstration election or propaganda can salvage. It is just possible that this is more of a long-run effect since many populist forces might tentatively welcome U.S. efforts to shake up local elites (I tend to agree with those that see U.S. exploitation of local struggles as counterproductive even in the short-run). So there could be a period where democratic forces enjoy new visibility and opportunities. In the final analysis, however, the U.S. has no interest in transferring power to foreign masses. When push come to shove, when popular political parties mature to the point of demanding a bigger slice of the pie, any perception of legitimacy of U.S. hegemony will also break down. The counterargument is that a much bigger "pie" means being able to satisfy more desires while keeping elites affluent and sufficiently satisfied. Think about how well that's worked here. Look at what the bottom half of the U.S. gets for the hours it works and how this has stagnated or gotten worse while the "economy" has gotten quite a bit bigger. It isn't even recognized as much of a national problem. It won't even become a blip on our country's international agenda.
|
|
#3
03-20-2005, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Military/Foreign Policy
Typical freshman level undergrad drivel......
Reminds me of TA ing intro to international relations and having laughins with the other TA's .....half of whom were liberals themselves. Do you know what an empire is ? How do empires operate politically and economically? Does hegemony by the U.S. constitute an empiric system ? Have nations been pressed into periods of regional or world wide hegemony and transitioned smoothly into more passive roles? What is more important...what a military actually does; or what the military capabilities of a given nation keeps other nations from doing? Answer these questions and Ill grade it by thursday....
|
|
#4
03-20-2005, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see a Zaxx post, I think of number 70 and the square root of -1
70 is weird but not irrational, square root of -1 is irrational but not weird, while Zaxx is both weird and irrational.
[ QUOTE ] Does hegemony by the U.S. constitute an empiric system ?? [/ QUOTE ] I'm a huge fan. <font color="white"> . </font>
|
|
#5
03-20-2005, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I see a Zaxx post, I think of number 70 and the square root of -1
[ QUOTE ]
70 is weird but not irrational, square root of -1 is irrational but not weird, while Zaxx is both weird and irrational. [/ QUOTE ] Well square root of -1 is complex not irrational. I think Zaxx is more like the square root of 2; such number is irrational and not transcendent
|
|
#7
03-20-2005, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I see a Zaxx post, I think of number 70 and the square root of -1
Now there's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.
Do you have any thoughts on the proper/appropriate size, nature and purpose of the US military (the question raised by this thread) or did you just post for the sake of throwing (hollow) stones at Chris? Here's some advice - how about next time you try something like: "I think A, B and C about the US military and I disagree with everything Chris wrote because of D, E, and F" with letters A through F representing some mixture of facts and opinions with minimal use of words like "drivel" or "laughin" (is that even a word?). Thanks!
|
|
#8
03-21-2005, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to change the visual
Mea culpa.
"Square root of -1 is complex not irrational." Right. More precisely, the square root of -1 is imaginary (and complex is every number that can be defined as x+iy , where x and y are real numbers and i is the imaginary unit equal to the square root of -1). But you're right, I must start thinking of other numbers when seeing a Zaxx post. I must look up Immature Numbers. Know any?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
