The Future of Militarization

I found the two articles fascinating. Both space and cyberspace are so vast it is difficult to imagine being able to militarize areas such as these. The US policy towards space seems so contradictory. Not only does it declare space an open area for peaceful purposes but then also declares it vital to US national security. It also seems to be completely against any form of regulation. I found that there is already an international body that oversees space. It is the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Here is the link if anyone is interested: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/COPUOS/copuos.html


I also think it will be every interesting in the future to see if wars are ever fought in cyberspace. The internet is so vast and has so many uses. It is difficult to even comprehend how it could be militarized and what that means. Does it simply refer to information collecting, to firewalls to other security defenses, to managing information for the public, or do military planners envision waging battles in cyberspace. In many ways cyberspace is larger than the world and it will be a large task for the 8th Air Force to attempt to militarize it. Here is an interesting CNN article from a few years back. I think it is the closest to a cyberwar that’s ever been waged.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/03/china.hack/index.html

Sanger: Korean Model

I think Sanger was quite right when he pointed out the major distinction that exists between US-Korean relations and the state of Iraq currently. Ever since South Korea was established they have had positive relations with the United States, and it was the Koreans who requested further help during the Korean War. This was obviously not the case in Iraq. Since the Korean War both nations have viewed the US presence as mutually beneficial, the Koreans viewing it as necessary for their security and the US as important to containing communism. In Iraq on the other hand, the US appreciates the strategic position of Iraq but for the most part Iraqis do not see the benefits of the US presence. The entire nature of the threats is different in Iraq compared to Korea. Korea was threatened by primarily external threats while in Iraq the threats are internal. I think that it is delusional to compare the history of the US-Korean relationship to that of Iraq.

On the other hand I also think that the situation in Iraq is not equal as Sanger suggest to that of the US and Vietnam. While in both conflicts there were internal threats to the US occupation, in Vietnam it was one people two states, while Iraq has a very heterogeneous population in one state. I think it is difficult to compare the situation Iraq with any past US involvement. And doing so increases the misunderstandings about the conflict.

I find it interesting that he mentions that status of forces agreements are usually made on an executive level basis and that is why congress need no vote on it, but in Iraq the status of forces agreement had to be ratified by not only the cabinet but also the Iraqi Parliament.

Moon: Sex Among Allies

I really liked the way in which Moon examined this issue, by not only looking at the personal level but also expanding it and putting it in the context of international relations. She makes a crucial point when she writes “both governments have viewed such prostitution as a means to advance the ‘friendly relations’ of both countries and to keep US soldiers ‘who fight so hard for the freedom of the South Korean people,’ happy.” (p.2) I would be very interested to read further to see to what extent prostitution was encouraged or fostered by these two governments. I think she makes a good point that one reason these women have been ostracize is because Korean do not want a constant reminder of the war and the insecurity it brought. I found it interesting that she observed how Koreans differentiate between the prostitution inflicted on them by the Japanese but do not recognize the problem of kijich’on prostitutes. Based on my own knowledge I think it is vital to emphasis the position Korean culture still plays in society today, and how completely ostracized these women and their children are by their cultural values. Lastly I think she argues well the fact that kijich’on prostitutes are viewed as a necessary evil of the US presence, and since the US is needed for protection then so is prostitution.

On a side note this prologue greatly reminded my of one of my favorite shows MASH. Even though MASH was a comedy it did to a large extent portray the struggles of war particularly the hardship of Koreans. In one episode of the show, they too point out the social stigma for Korean women who mix with American soldiers. The show delved deep into the issues raised by this introduction. The show covered everything from the statues of prostitutes and their offspring to the dream of many of these Korean women to marry a US soldier. If anyone is interest I would recommend the episode “Yessir, That's Our Baby” (season 8 episode 15). Here the doctors in MASH find an abandoned Amerasian baby and attempt to secure her a better future. One reason I think I found this article so interesting was the informal background MASH gives its viewers.

Life of US Military Bases

I have being going through some of these sites and I have to say how surprised I was at some of them. I never would have thought that there was an official site devoted completely towards kids of the military. I have been poking around this site and they have everything from how to cope with the change to what to do before you move. They even say that you should backup your computer before you move and show you how. They have short stories from other military kids as well as what to expect at your new home. I think it is good that the military has taken the time to make this type of resource for the kids of the military. I know as someone who has moved a lot that this type of site would be helpful and comforting to a child who is faced with another move.

There are some many different types of military installations that it is difficult to image life on one particular base. After looking at these sites I believe that military carefully plans the lifestyle of its soldiers and their families when stationed both abroad and in the US. From my personal experience I have seem bases such as those we saw on Okinawa but also bases that were more restrictive and did not even allow dependants of soldiers to live with them. When I was living in Germany for example, many of the bases were made to look very much like suburban America. All the houses were nicely lined up with American architecture, there were baseball fields around and even an American grocery store. They even brought American toilet paper to Germany. There, it was literally like an artificial American neighborhood in the middle of Germany.

When I was living I Qatar the US military bases were quite different. No military personnel were allowed to bring their dependants so there was virtually no housing. It made the bases smaller and they looked much less “American”. I think that life on a base must greatly depend on where it is and what kind of life the military designs for its soldiers. Seeing all these sites really makes me think that the military goes to great lengths to really design the lifestyle for its personnel.

Dietz: State Making and Legitimization of Foreign Military Presence

The part I found most interest was not just about the US presence on Okinawa but all the different mechanisms the US used both before and after the Second World War to maintain their presence there. The United States manipulated the perception of Okinawa as part of Japan and then not, and so forth ever since the time of Matthew Perry. The US also unilaterally severed the islands from Japan after the World War Two. The aspect I found most intriguing however was how the US used post-colonial institutions such as the UN to further its hold on the islands. Kelly points out that the US established themselves as trustee of Okinawa in a UN resolution. I like the language she points out “the trust territory shall play its part in the maintenance of international peace and security”(p9). The US was really able in this case to exploit post-colonial institutions to further their semi-colonial ambitions.

I also never realized the complexity of the history of Okinawa. So often they are simply represented as part of Japan that I never realized how separate they are from mainland Japan. I found it interest that their geographical location was so much closer to so many other Asian powers, than Japan. Also that they are culturally/religiously similar to China, rather than Buddhists like Japan.

Sandar: A Tale of Two Empires

I liked Sandars analogy of the British Empire to explain the expansion of United States military bases around the world. He rightly utilizes the history of the Second World War to explain how and why the US was able to occupy so much land in such a short amount of time. He states that “the British Empire took some two hundred years to reach its peak, the global security system of the United States a mere ten years.”(6) He also cited the famous quote that the British Empire was acquired “in a fit of absence of mind”. While he argues that this is not true for the US due to the way in which US officials during the 1940s planned for bases to be constructed but they were attempting to help the United States become secure. Britain was likewise attempting to consolidate her security when John Seeley’s coin the phase. There are striking similarities between the British Empire a hundred years ago and the global network the US has established today. By examining the progression of US bases around the world by paralleling it with the history of the British Empire we can learn from their lessons.

While it is clear that Sandar is focusing of the military aspect of the United States’ power, it is important to understand that this power is not based on sole military strength but also economic power. Some of his arguments seem empty by the fact he does not address the power of the American economy over the world as well as military. In terms of the military he does chart the rise of foreign military bases well

Barstow: Behind the Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand

Barstow’s article on military analysts who often appear on new programs was informative in that it illustrated their relationship with the government that we never knew of, but is this information actually shocking, does it really impact how we perceive what they say? I believe people recognize that these military analysts support the governments agenda, regardless of whether it is being spoon-feed to them or not. Neither the news outlet nor the analysts himself attempts to hide his past affiliation with the military, the whole reason he is on TV is because he has some past experience with the military. Viewers would have to be completely ignorant to believe that a person who has devoted his entire life to an institution can be neutral or unbiased when “analyzing” it. Furthermore no one is disputing that these analysts are not full time reporters. They are not bound by the same ethical standards as correspondences or reporters. In many ways these military analysts are very similar to guests that appear on news programs. No one is insisting on guests being impartial, the main purpose of hosting guests is to gain their perspective. Lastly, what impact do these military analysts have? They are not the ones providing the news, or reporting it. True their primary purpose is to place the news in context, but they are not the sole source providing news coverage or its context. Let’s not lose all faith in the American viewer to interpret what is content verses what is context.

While I do not believe that the link between the government and mainstream media via the use of military analysts as mouthpieces is that significant, I do believe that this connection as investigated by Barstow should be recognized and understood. I believe that it is important to understand this new layer in how the White House dominates the discourse. While the content the military analysts provide may be nothing new, recognizing the relationship between government and the media via, military analysts, is important in understanding one way in which the government shapes public perception. It is the hallmark of a democracy to have an independent media, but the greater point of Barstow's piece I believe, is in outlining how the government, specifically the Pentagon uses military analysts to influence the media and public perception. He writes “they were framing how viewers ought to interpret events” (p.4). While I think the governments’ use of military analysts to further their agenda is reprehensible, I hope that viewers distinguish between content and context. If people are able to recognize the difference and understand the biases military analysts have than this problem is minimized.