2001 A Space Oddessy

The guiding principles of the US National Space Policy are very militaristic. It begins with a fairly peaceful and scientific outlining of ideals- such as using space to increase the speed of information through enhanced technologies. But it quickly asserts itself to take a very defensive position over the right of the U.S. and any other nation to the exploration of space. And it outlines that we will defend our sovereignty of space if any nation attempts to impede our progress or be hostile to our national interest. I found it ironic if anything that we talk about 'responding to interference'. The principles make it out to seem that our missions in space are for the spreading of freedom. But there is clearly US military/air force owned equipment in space, covered vaguely in the principles.

Overall, I think the exploration of- and possible attempt at conquest of- space may be similar to the colonizational practices of Europe in the Americas. The guidelines could easily be expanded to start to cover the territory of the moon and other planets and already starts to provide the U.S. with the ability to command and control areas of space where our equipment is placed- under the umbrella of "defense of national interest."

Will the real SOFA please stand up?

So it struck me while reading the articles about the SOFA being discussed for US-Iraq that no one seems to know exactly what it should say, what the current talks have been about, or whether or not it was even a SOFA treaty. The confusion over just what is going on is far from comforting in a time when our role in shaping Iraq can take two very different paths.

First off, the article seems to make it clear to me (although admits self doubt) that the U.S. was going to lose its legal basis for maintaining a presence in Iraq after Dec. 31st of this year. Therefore, I see the SOFA as being a very important treaty to be made- one which should have been more heavily discussed before the last moment.

The prospect of leaving Iraq in the next few years, with ZERO military presence in the country afterward is a bit startling to me. I have always been against the war and want the majority of our troops out, but our actions there have produced as much damage as it has good. I know the Iraqi people want us out, but we put ourselves into an impossible situation. If we leave, there is a possibility that terrorist organizations will begin to form once more. The dysfunctional mess that is the Iraqi government is not able to organize their forces properly to prevent this from happening.

Most surprising has been the turn the actual SOFA took from the tone in which the article was laying out the U.S. government's wishes. Before the new draft was released, Bruno's article gave me the distinct feeling that Bush would not back down from the theme in which his administration has run things in the past.

I also must agree that it is wrong to compare Iraq and South Korea. The situations are completely different, and the success of a country like South Korea can not just be blindly attributed to the SOFA and basing that went on after the war there. Iraq must be looked at on its own, and recognized for its uniqueness.

"Yankee Go Home"

Moon's article about the camptown prostitution in South Korea creates a very bleak image of foreign military basing. Aside from abusing the land and businesses around the base is the extreme violation of human rights of the South Korean people. Most of the abuse may not originate from American soldiers, but the prostitution that many women find themselves stuck with has injured korean culture. Moon explains that the prostitutes have been labeled as outcasts, and the lack of activism and research in the situation has led to the continuance of the problem. Many prostitutes are impregnated by American soldiers and never see a dime of help. Others are abused by their pimps and lead a life of poverty and shame. And Moon's overall point is the disgust over state to state negotiations that essentially condone this.

Should We Stay or Should We Go Now: "The Clash" of Our Time

The question of whether or not we should reduce or remove bases located in Okinawa is a difficult one. The article by Ota paints a depressing picture of the affects of the base on Okinawa. He provides various reason to remove the base, settling on the main point that it imposes on human rights. The sizes of the bases on Okinawa surely seem a bit excessive for the small island and while the number of bases may be acceptable for the region, Ota makes a good point that it is unfair for the people of their single island to be responsible for 50% of them. However, many of his statistics seem generalized and he makes points based on scientific evidence that should be backed up and provided if it is to be believed. His mention of detrimental affects of noise pollution on infants is a simple statement, not a scientific fact, at least until he provides some sort of data to back it up. Also, it fails to provide any analysis of the data in which he provides. There could have been reasons for the drop in jobs for local residents on the bases or for the use of the land for military training exercises. But overall, I can agree that human rights are definitely an issue that should be addressed, even if in a manner that includes keeping the bases in existance.

Is the U.S. Just a Big Hippocrit?

I think there are a lot of reasons for the U.S. to have bases throughout the world. During WWII we built hundreds in both Europe and the Pacific region. After the war, many were turned into permanent bases in order to provide security to both America and the regions surrounding former Nazi Germany and Japan. In 1945, Truman stated in a conference that the purpose of these bases were not for selfish advantage, but were necessary for "the complete protection of our interests and of world peace." And I believe this was indeed the truth in why we initially maintained foreign bases. Whether this was a good reason at the time or still a good reason today is not the purpose of my argument.

As for the other bases that have been established across the Earth, I think they fall into the main category of providing for the continuance of American hegemony. While some are there to deter threats or attacks on allied countries and others may be there for influential reasons or the placement of strategic global resources, all would arguably pertain to the continued hegemony of the U.S. And these are the reasons that we do not have foreign bases in our country. Quite simply, any allied country that wishes to get resources from us can trade with us, any country that wishes to gain influence with our government can establish an embassy or allow for a U.S. military base in their own country and any enemy country obviously won't be allowed anywhere near our borders for national security reasons. And finally, the operation and maintenance of foreign bases are very expensive, and not many countries can afford such a thing. There's simply no reason for other countries to have bases in the U.S, as opposed to the many reasons for America's bases abroad.

Another thing to take into account is the stability of a country. An unstable nation with strategic importance (either resources or geopolitically) can often be helped by a U.S. base being in the area. Foreign governments with rebellious citizens or organized crime issues are happy to have the support of more powerful and advanced troops nearby. And the U.S. is happy to put a base there if it serves a purpose. In all honesty, I think that many of the motives behind U.S. military and foreign policy in the Middle East lie in the need for stability in the oil rich region. While future decisions for the creation or deconstruction of military bases abroad will be long debated, overall the preponderance of American hegemony, not an American Empire, will be at the heart of each decision.

Don't Rethink Who Makes Your Shampoo

The Real Matrix article opened my eyes as to the extent to which so many companies are tied in with the armed forces in business. The web that is weaved when talking about government contracts with private companies to provide anything from weapons to toothbrushes is discombobulating. However, as shocking (and annoying) as it was to see the article continuously rattle off nearly every company's tie to the military throughout the story, I don't think it's cause to revolt. I don't think it's any better to refuse to buy GE because they make some of the vehicles they drive around on then I do to stop buying J&J because they make the shampoo that soldiers use. This type of association and business is a necessary part of the development and maintenance of a standing army.

Shepperd and Meigs Escape From Guantanamo Bay (from the author of "Shepperd and Meigs Go to White Castle")

In similar topic to my last post, the article by the New York Times, "Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand," offers another look at the control over the media that the armed forces exercise. I remember many news reports that claimed to have special, professional, and knowledgeable insight, into the War on Terror and its areas of concern, like Guantanamo Bay. But these retired military officers, which we were led to believe were able to provide adequate unbiased analysis of current military operations, gave no such original content. Their ties to military contractors and special all-access passes kept them roped quite closely to what amounted almost to a script of talking points to be made while on the air.. from the Pentagon. Their carefully orchestrated tour of Guantanamo Bay as well as the rest of their analysis on Iraq was not their own. The information they got about all of the topics was directly given to them by the Pentagon, and we can be certain that any unfavorable facts, figures, or images were carefully strewed away. I think this ties into my last post, that they lack of vigilance by journalists and network executives paved the way for these Pentagon posterboys to shore up the Bush Doctrine and keep the American people in a perpetual state of ignorance.