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.

Why We Fight vs How We Report

I think one of the most important points that was brought up in the documentary "Why We Fight" was about the relationship between the Pentagon and the media. The line, "we need to prevent another American body from getting on the air again" comes to mind. After Vietnam, the Pentagon realized the drastic negative affect of certain images appearing on television. Namely the dead bodies of U.S. soldiers. I feel like our journalists have failed us in maintaining a critical and unbiased view of the military and our government. An interviewee in the documentary said that the U.S. has been in a state of diminished vigilance since the time of Dwight Eisenhower. I feel like the media has made the same mistake. They succumbed to the same blind rage and vengeance that the rest of America felt after 9/11 and the failure in capturing Osama Bin Laden. The next President and group of leadership in the U.S. must take new insight and skepticism in examining our current strategy in foreign policy and the War on Terror so that we may reinstate not only the reputation of American throughout the world, but first, to its own citizens.

Outsourcing We Can All Agree On

The privatization of the military as a means for national defense would not be safe. The disadvantages of private military forces outlined in "Corporate Warriors" includes the lack of consistent humanitarian practices and lack of strict loyalty found in national armies. However, I am in favor of the use of private forces for aiding in foreign countries that are plagued by domestic conflict. It's sad to say, but the American people don't feel that it is our responsibility to interfere in foreign conflicts that don't effect our national security or interest. But many of these conflicts are borderline genocide. Therefore, I would support the use of private forces hired by the U.N. or other international body to enforce peace and create stability in many impoverished. It would be a win-win for the people of the affect nations as well as the countries sanctioning the orders.

Compulsory Service? Why? Because Dan Thinks You're Myopic

I took personal offense to something said in Dan Rodrick's article about reinstating the draft. Right from the beginning he takes the stance that young people in America don't care about the outcome of the war and have more worries about who will win the next American Idol competition. As one of the young adults he is speaking about, I strongly disagree with his accusation.

I think the majority of Americans, including young adults, find the outcome of the war very important. It’s the constant arguing in the media and in politics over what a victory actually would be, and a saturation of bad news coming out of the middle east that leads us to daily discussions about TV rather than the war. Why should we talk about something depressing and unchanging? All we see on the news about the war these days (if anything at all) is the tragic bombing of a security checkpoint, followed by new totals of the American and Iraqi death toll. We're not able to discuss any victories, or anything good at all.

Dan's second article is even more insulting than the first. And the worst part is that he uses the insults as the reasons for his idealistic belief that we should basically force all young Americans to do good deeds, change the world, and restore America as a nation of good people with good will. He first generalizes everyone who opposes his 2-year mandatory service idea into libertarians who would no more force someone to serve in the armed forces or peace corps, than they would force someone to pay taxes.

Then he goes on to say that mandatory service in one of the three branches he outlined (armed forces, domestic assignment, foreign humanitarian assignment) would fix the alleged problems with our youth, including having become "increasingly myopic, wealth-obsessed, self-centered, cynical and clueless to essential concepts of loyalty and teamwork, community and commitment."

Wow...

Wait a minute, that sounds more like the morons that lied to get us into this war, destroyed the economy, and smoked pot and led the sexual revolution in the 70s... our parents. The very people he describes with those words are the people that run the businesses and politics of our time, NOT the young adults that plan on voting for other people to change all that. And those same people had the draft in the 70s. And they changed it... for a reason. Cumposory service should never be in effect unless the fate of the world or country depends on it.

The advancement of technology has required soldiers to become more professional and niche skilled. Two year service would rotate too many people through the system, putting a strain on the country's economy and armed service branches in general. Also, conventional warfare is less dependant on high numbers of troops. And considering how unacceptable it is for 4,000 soldiers to die in a war today a draft would just increase the amount of troops dying each day. And yes, his suggestion would do a great deal of good in our own country and in others and thus help us and help reinstate the U.S.'s reputation... a reputation soiled by the post baby boom generation now in control of the country.

Young people are naturally cynicall. It's a personal defense to prevent depression from how much our parents have screwed up the world. The young people of today have so much to make up for. But Dan wants us to start cleaning up their mess sooner. Well I don't think that's very fair. Even when not faced with compulsory service, I can garuntee that people my age would rather us pull out of Iraq than continue sacrificing Americans for a lost cause (assuming there was a just cause in the first place).

I don't see the rest of the world bending over backwards for other nations, so as priviledged and lucky as I am to be an American and lead the life I live, I don't plan on supporting any bill or push for forcing people to do what should be voluntary. If another Holocaust or world war breaks out then I will be in compete support of service, as terrified to die as I might be.

The American Foreign Legion?

I must say, I don't really get the fuss behind express citizenship for those who serve in the armed forces. Other countries have similar programs, and it provides benefits for both the United States as well as the foreigner that wants citizenship. The article plays devil's advocate by pointing out that this offer goes too far and cheapens the sacrifice and duty that the armed forces once stood for. But the development of an all-volunteer army has its consequences. While it may have worked fine during the years of the cold-war and post cold war peacetime forces, now that the U.S. is engaged in combat the forces have found themselves drained and dependent on reserve services.

It also doesn't help that the war is not popular. The army has become dependent on sales tactics to attract servicemen. Branding the military isn't easy, which is why experts were brought in when they initially went all-volunteer. I think the all-volunteer army was an inevitable part of the evolution of modern warfare. Like Nixon said, the threat of nuclear war has changed to face of the conventional battlefield. Skirmishes and small scale special forces dominate the physical battlefield. This in combination with intelligence gathering defines modern warfare.

I think the benefits of mandatory service are not unlike those which could just be obtained by volunteering to serve in the armed forces. The best reason I could see for mandatory service would simply be fairness. But as long as good wages and benefits remain, a volunteer service is the best way to go. It ensures that the majority of the members want to be there, or at least weren't forced into it (though it has been argued that the poor and unskilled are indirectly pushed toward service). Volunteer service also provides for more extensive training and professional soldiers. This means less casualties and mistakes on the battlefield.

From Your Bedroom to the Front Lines

Someday in the future an entire war may be fought from the comfort of one's home. Or at least... that's where the technology could be headed. The convergence of video games and the military is seen by many as an unholy marriage of home entertainment and world domination, but I choose to see it in a different light. Over the past twenty years video games have been the testing waters for remote operations for the army. It has also increasingly become the stage for training and simulations for soldiers.

The authenticity and realism of these games has allowed the armed forces to train soldiers better and help them be more prepared for what real combat is like. This means more efficient work and helps to ensure the safety of the troops in the field.

Stahl's writings speak to a slightly different note. The darker picture painted in his writings, however, are accurate. While war is still waged with guns and tanks, the major battlefield has shifted to that of deception and intelligence. And while the decrease in conventional warfare is good for citizens who might fall victim to collateral damage, the nature of this new battlefield makes the citizen a more direct target than in the past.

I find modern war both frightening and provacative. My curious nature and love of technology help me to see it in a more positive light. The major victories of the war on terror are known to very few. While the physical battle in Afghanistan went well, initially, it has since taken a turn for the worse. What remains are the triumphs of the economic shutdowns that were imposed on various funds and investments that would be used to wire and stow terrorist money. This new war of intelligence is a game that the U.S. can lead in, and I hope that with new government leadership we can revive the steadfast and resolute attitude that we had during the Cold War.

Reprogramming Our Youth, One Child's Toychest at a Time

Karen Hall's essay, "False Witness: Combat Entertainment and Citizen Training in the United States" asserts several views about both the movie industry and its portrayal of the military as well as the brainwashing effect that military toys can have on children.

I tend to agree with her main points on the issue of movies and their effect on the opinion of the military in the minds of American citizens. The trauma of war can be such a horrific experience, many soldiers never wish to relive it. This leaves the public with a very narrow view of warfare; not to mention a commercialized one. Hall also delves into the psychological aspect of what she calls "false witness." Many war movies justify unfair and cruel acts on the enemy by portraying them as acts of revenge.

I think Hall touches on an important observation of the relationship between movies and reality. The trauma of watching a close friend or comrade get killed calls for closure and openness. But movies always show the soldiers suppress any semblance of such feelings, instead rallying to a cry for revenge and retaliation.

And all these movies which set up our nation's war story and control our opinion of the army are used by toy companies. Makers of various popular military action figures, vehicles and guns use war movie scenes either in advertisements or as still images on the case of the toy. All of this attracts kids to their product. If a child sees images of Rambo using a machine gun to spray endless rounds of ammunition against the enemy, they'll want the toy gun to emulate the hero they've been told to love. Hall also points out that imagination is sucked out of the use of the toy and replaced with imitation.

I had one disagreement with Hall's observation. She argues that these types of toys lead children to collect rather than play. While collecting can certainly be a part of some toys, based on my own childhood I would argue that collection was not the main focus of buying more toys. It was the ability to expand the storyline that could be made or provided and overall to enhance the level of play. But perhaps not all children play with these kinds of toys the way I did.

Overall, I thought Hall drew some very interesting relationships between the 'war narrative' set up by a movie and the transfer of that to toys for kids. But thus is capitalism. Sports are popular, so it sells games and movies. Comics are popular, so they do the same. The military is an equally popular genre of films and toys. The question is whether or not it has a negative impact on youth and what can be done about it.