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.