Thoughts on the Process of Militarization

Over the course of the semester I have learned a great deal about militarization, and know that I will never be able to think of the process in the same ways that I once did. Most importantly, I will no longer be able to avoid noticing the militarization that is all around us. Nor would I want to. The military and its supporting institutions play a critical role in the lives of people across the globe, including of course my own. We have been raised in a society that is thoroughly militarized, and without doubt the process continues as strongly as ever. The end of militarization is, unfortunately, unforeseeable, but I can still make sure to be aware and to interact with the process in a constructive way. I still have much more to learn about militarization, its past, present and future, but this has been as good a start as I could ask for.

I would also like to discuss briefly the outlook for the future of militarization that we covered Monday. As always, it seems that the military continues to expand and grow into any new realms that might arise. Space and cyberspace cannot avoid the process of militarization. As stated in the report on current U.S. space policy, these new areas are equated with "air power and sea power." Potential threats are everywhere, and so we must take care to guard everywhere. It is very unfortunate that our government has come to think in these ways, a thought process that is itself emblematic of the degree to which militarization has permeated our society and its institutions. It seems to me that as we move forward we have to find a way to alter the assumptions and ingrained sensibilities that serve as the foundation for militarized thinking, a task that will take considerable time and effort and that must itself be as powerful and deep-seeded as the process of militarization itself. I don't think that anybody enjoys living in a militarized world, and ultimately it is because of the mistrust and fear that seem inherent in human societies and interactions that we do. But whether it is possible to dispel these things or not, it is important that we try.

The Future of the U.S. Military in Iraq

Given what we have learned thus far this semester, I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. military will actually be completely out of Iraq by 2011. It seems very rare that the U.S. leaves any strategic location willingly, especially one in as critical an area as Iraq. Even Barak Obama has said that he is interested in leaving residual forces in Iraq beyond the SOFA deadline, and I would be very surprised if some sort of agreement were not worked out in the future to arrange for an extended U.S. military presence in some capacity.

As for the SOFA as it stands right now, based on what I know I am for the most part satisfied and pleased. I don't think that those who are against an extended U.S. presence in Iraq could have expected any better, and though there will undoubtedly be considerably more debate over the issue down the road, I think it is a good first step. A Korea-like basing policy in Iraq would only create many of the same problems that we see in Korea--not to mention in other base locations around the world--and would likely not provide worthwhile security to the United States, especially given all the other bases already in the region.

Increasing our global military footprint seems to me to be the opposite of what the U.S. should be doing right now. Our military is already overstretched and its presence often strains foreign relations and views towards the U.S. rather than improves them. We must be careful to respect the wishes of the Iraqi government and people regarding future U.S. military presence in their country or we will likely cause greater problems than we solve.

Communities Do Not All Respond to Basing in the Same Way

The articles that we read for Wednesday, except perhaps Ahn's, show quite clearly that large-scale military basing, whether foreign or domestic, creates a system of dependency with respect to the local community where they are located. Especially economically, but to some extent culturally and socially as well, communities that are home to bases come to rely heavily on those bases and the soldiers stationed in them in their day-to-day affairs. In some cases, such as with Guam, communities may be effectively defined by their bases. Though we have become familiar with anti-American base sentiment such as in Okinawa, Diego Garcia and now Korea, the cases of Schweinfurt and Connecticut provide examples of instances in which most fear base closure and depend on the presence of them for their livelihood. Not all decry a local military presence. Indeed, I have no doubt that many members of communities that question basing such as some in Okinawa very much depend on their bases and would hate to see them go.

What can be said about basing whether welcome or unwelcome is that it has an enormous effect on communities where it occurs. It is difficult to judge the value of basing in general. It seems rather that the worth of bases and attitudes toward them need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Though in the long-term and greater scheme of things perhaps we can determine that the overall effects of basing on a community are more often than not negative, to fail to understand the particular situations characterized by each U.S. base and instead assume that they are all the same would be a mistake. It is important to tread carefully when dealing with institutions which have such wide-ranging impacts on people's lives, such as large military bases.

Blind to the Reality of Foreign Basing

The price of foreign military basing clearly is high for both those living in the community in which the base is located as well as for the members of the military and their families who have to live on the bases. Given this and also that in many instances foreign military basing is essentially nothing more than legally sanctioned colonialism, the question of whether or not these prices are worth paying for their supposed benefit is critical. Of course, we are told that such basing is necessary for our security, but I can't help but wonder how so. It seems more that it is our material way of life that we are defending rather than our security. The two are equated as being the same thing, but this is really not true. How much are we willing to sacrifice our supposed democratic and humanitarian ideals to be able to project power in order to maintain our lifestyles? How much worse off would the world and the U.S. really be if we pulled out of foreign bases in areas where the locals don't necessarily want us there?

What bothers me the most is that these question have never really been posed to us--to the American people. They have been decided for us so that we can go on believing we are the world's foremost proponents of self-determination and human rights. It is very disconcerting that the public is so disconnected from the actions of our government around the world. We have come to support actions that we claim to believe are wrong without ever really even realizing it.

Okinawa is Shouldering the Burden of Others

Ota Masahide raises some important questions about the effects U.S. military bases have upon the communities in which they rest. Especially in a remote and relatively limited location such as Okinawa, a large military presence will inevitably transform a community in extreme ways. These transformations are not always positive, and it would seem that such communities should have a serious say regarding whether or not such military establishments exist and to what extent. We are assured by our government that the U.S. is not an imperial power, and this may be so on paper. However, if the people around the world who must live with our military bases have no say in their existence or administration, to what extent is this non-imperial explanation practical? Accepting Ota's analysis, it seems little consolation to the Okinawans that the Japanese government has agreed to allow U.S. bases to exist in their present state. It seems all too easy to deny that our military's actions are imposing when the voices of those who feel they are being imposed upon are so easily silenced, or are quiet to begin with.

I do believe that in many areas around the world security is important, but the burden of supporting our security apparatus should be shared as equally as possible among those who are being protected. This does not seem to be the case with respect to Okinawa. It seems, rather, that they lack the ability to resist pressures from the U.S. and Japanese governments to the extent that it would become worthwhile to transplant some of the burden imposed by bases to others that in turn might offer a stronger political resistance. This is unfortunate and unfair. All of those who think that their security is worth the price should be willing to pay their share of that price.

Barstow and Media Responsibility

It has become common to learn of new methods that the Bush Administration had used to nefariously sell the Iraq War. I had never heard about the particular practice of prepping friendly military analysts described by Barstow until I read his article. That so little respect was shown for the American people and for the democratic process in the lead-up to the war continues to depress me.

Reading this article raised some questions concerning not only executive power and dishonesty but also some important ones regarding the media's relationship with the military and its place in the military industrial complex and withing the process of militarization more generally. Either purposely or unintentionally, it is clear the the media plays at times an important role in selling the MIC and the military. The events with analysts serves as a wonderful example of this. The media must be able to protect itself from being used by dishonest forces of militarization. Equally as important, the media must not fail to report such attempts to mislead the public when they are discovered. In trying to protect themselves from the criticism that they justly deserve for failing to look-into the backgrounds of their analysts, most in the media have committed an additional disservice by failing to report a story that is highly relevant. When the MIC is purposely hidden not only by the forces directly involved but also by those whose obligation it is to reveal such instances of misdoing, it becomes difficult to see how the process can receive the public scrutiny and debate that it deserves.

Most Americans have no idea what the MIC is and what kind of influence it has over their lives, not to mention the lives of others throughout the world. It is difficult to see how this critical factor of U.S. politics can be made clear to those who are supposed to be--at least in theory--the legitimate source of the nation's sovereignty if neither our politicians or news sources provide the information necessary for understanding. What Barstow's article reveals about the government's attempts to secretly shape our opinions is deeply troubling, but equally as troubling is what it reveals about the media's complicity in the process and about its inability to act independently and honestly.

Turse and the Military Industrial Complex

Nick Turse raises some very important questions regarding the military industrial complex in today's society. He argues that any firms and corporations that receive funds from the Department of Defense or provide any type of service to the military constitute examples of the MIC in action. This covers an enormous array of businesses that provide an enormous array of services not only to the military but to all facets of our society, as Turse makes clear in his article. Accepting this view, we must admit that the MIC has penetrated our lives so deeply that it has become virtually impossible to avoid partaking in it. We cannot hope to avoid contributing to the militarization of our society without essentially giving up on basic needs that we have come to rely on, and without paying our taxes--less the focus of Turse's article but nonetheless an obviously critical aspect of the complex as he describes it.

If we are to conclude that the MIC has become a problem, we then have to ask ourselves how that problem might be solved, and unfortunately an easy or clear solution does not come to mind, nor does Turse propose one. We cannot realisticly be expected to stop buying products made by companies that recieve military funding or provide services to the military. There are simply too many. The MIC has become so deeply rooted that it seems nearly impossible to weed out without fundamentally altering the way business and government works. Perhaps providing less of our federal budget to the military would be a good start, but that seems highly improbable given our current political reality. We would have to stop using our military before anyone would suggest we stop funding it, and even if we did that, people would then have to be convinced that the likelyhood of needing to use it were small, which also seems unlikely in today's world.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I think that our society will need to undergo a number of significant changes before the military industrial comples can be diminished and eventually erradicated. Most people do not even recognize it as a problem, and I don't doubt that many would defend it. Afterall, we have seen many material benefits as a result of the MIC. I would agree with President Eisenhower that the MIC represents a very real danger to supposed American values and to our future, but unfortunately it is a hole that it will take us a very long time to dig ourselves out of, if we are able to at all.

The Military and Citizenship

The idea of allowing non-citizens who serve in our military access to citizenship is certainly fair. In-fact, I find the notion of not allowing immigrants who are willing to make such a sacrifice for our country access to citizenship to be reprehensible. If non-citizens are allowed to serve, they must be allowed to become citizens for doing so. The question that I feel must be asked in response to the articles of Wong, Moscoso and Bender, then, is should non-citizens be allowed to serve in our military at all? When answering this question I think it is important to distinguish between resident non-citizens and foreigners who do not even live in the United States. Questions of taking advantage of the poor or underprivileged aside, (something that most immigrants joining the military are but do not necessarily have to be), I am inclined to say that resident aliens should be allowed to join the military and hence become citizens by doing so. They have an equal stake in defending their homes and lives as anyone else. This is currently the case as I understood it from the articles. One is required to be a resident of the United States to join the military, but not a citizen. This does, however, raise some important questions upon deeper reflection. These stem from the fact that non-citizens are required to serve a certain amount of time in the military before being granted citizenship. This means that they have no stake in the decisions of the society that may send them to war. This is a question raised at the end of Moscoso's article that I feel is very important but that is not elaborated on. I find it to be a serious problem that we as a society may send people to war who have no political stake in the society. This seems not only profoundly undemocratic but dangerous as well. It is similar to the disconnect that our society has with the effects of war that we talked about last class, but seems to be taken to an even greater extreme. We should not be allowed to send others to fight our wars, even if we promise to grant them access to citizenship for doing so, because it creates a situation where we as a society are displacing the risk onto someone else. For this reason, I feel that non-citizens must be granted citizenship immediately upon joining the military, if only to solve this philosophical quandry. We must not send people to die for a society that does not count them among their own.

As for the question of allowing non-resident foreigners to join our military, I think the answer must be no. My reasons for this conclusion are similar to those above. It is wrong to allow people to fight for a society or to be sent to fight by a society that they do not have a stake in. And in this case, not only do they lack a political stake, but unlike the case with resident non-citizens, they lack a literal or physical stake as well. When we begin sending foreigners to do our killing and our dieing for us we have reached a point where we have truly become disconnected from the wars that we choose to fight. When we absolve ourselves of all of the risks, we forget the seriousness of the violence that we allow or potentially cause, and therefore lack a framework from which to judge the necessity of violence. We have too little to lose in making war upon others.

Notes on Mariscal and Astore: Why we Enlist

Mariscal and Astore both raise a number a points in their articles that no doubt play a significant role in the motivation of young men and women to join the military. There are two specific points though, one raised by each, that I found particularly pertinent. These deal with the issues that each author seems to take most seriously. In Mariscal's case, it is the motivating factor of altruism and how the military, and more importantly how political leaders, exploit good intentions to wage unjust and destructive wars. In Astore's case, it is the idea that many young American men have come to see American culture as overtly feminized and view the military as the best outlet for certain aspects of their masculinity. I would like to explore both of these points and see what you guys think about them.

To begin with Mariscal, I would like to note that I found his argument claiming that many young people join the military because they seek to make something of themselves and also to improve the world very compeling. Everyone wishes on some level to do these things, and for those who lack few other options, the military certainly might be one way to do them. Mariscal points out that many working class youth choose this rout simply because it seems the only one available to them. I see the logic in this argument, though I don't see why joining the military must necessarily be a last resort. Those in better economic situations who do have alternative options to affect the world for the better might choose the military nonetheless. If many assume that the military is a substandard option it seems that from Mariscal's point of view that this is because they realize that it is in fact a poor outlet for altruistic intentions. Yet, nonetheless, the poor choose it. This raises the question of why those in poor economic conditions are fooled and not others, and can be seen as being a somewhat elitist argument. I also feel that Mariscal over-emphasises the extent to which the good intentions of the young are unjustly and calously exploited by those seeking "imperialist fantasy". This is cartainly true to a degree. However, to suggest that a "military caste system" is taking shape in our country is, I feel, a little much. Many of those in the military think that the wars that they are engaged in now are in fact making the world a better place, and while I would personaly agree with Mariscal that they are not, it is wrong to suggest that those who join the military are somehow unaware of what it is they will get involved in. If they join to do good, then they think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are good or they live in a hole.

I see the wisdom of Astore's point concerning the military as outlet for masculinity as well. All in all, perhaps it is an argument with less flaws than Mariscals. I personally know members of the military who certainly did have other options, such as college. They did not join because it was their only choice, and certainly countless others did not as well. While I would argue that our society does have other outlets for masculinity, such as sports and some jobs performing manual labor, it is perhaps true that these are less viable career options than the military. If one wishes to express their masculinity in their career, the military seems the best road. Astore also points out that many young men enlist because of the way society treats violence as taboo, likening it to sex during the victorian era. Because of this, the military is one of the few acceptable outlets for violence in our society. However, unlike sex, violent urges are something that must be seriously repressed, and so Astore concludes correctly that we must find another means of satisfying masculine urges. It would be foolish to misunderstand the need for young men to express their masculinity, and so Astore's argument should be taken very seriously.

A Response to Stahl's "Have You Played the War on Terror?"

Reading Stahl's article I couldn't help but consider my own history with respect to military themed video games. I have played my fair share, and although I never considered joining up as a result, I have to admit that video games have certainly played a role in shaping my conceptions of the military. Even for the great majority of us who view these games merely as another form of entertainment rather than as persuasive arguments favoring a potential career choice, it is difficult to deny that they do at the very least serve to shape our images of what the military does and why it does it. To think that the military itself puts so much energy into attempts to influence those images is a little bit frightening. It is almost Orwellian.

I accept Stahl's argument that military themed video games have had positive results on recruiting. The fact that the military has poured so much focus into them is evidence enough. However, I am interested in the ways such media influences those of us who do not join the armed forces as a result of playing. Do we become more inclined to accept military activity as something that is normal or even necessary when otherwise we might not? Is state violence or even simply the military itself seen in a more positive light by society as a whole because video games (not to mention other forms of media) convey these as perfectly reasonable and just means to solve our problems? Perhaps intangibles such as these are as important to the military and those favoring warfare as other more obvious and measurable benefits.