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.

Simpson: Pipeline to Peril

The Simpson investigation about the exploitation of workers from developing countries touched me, because this issue is very personal to me. Throughout the Arabian Gulf and now Iraq, workers come from all over South and South East Asia to find lucrative menial jobs in hopes of earning enough to return home wealthy. Like the Simpson article explained they are lured by wages that are more than they could make at home but in dollars only about 125 to 400. The ‘employment agents’, as stated in the article promise jobs in other countries, often misrepresenting or lying about the wage. In return they charge a huge sum both for their ‘service’ and airfare. Essentially when these workers get to their jobs their families are in so much debt they have no choice but to continue to work. In both Iraq and in Gulf States they are forced to live in almost concentration camp style, not allowed to freely come or go. Their working conditions are horrible and deadly accidents occur often.

In Qatar I spent a lot of time working to help improve both working conditions and worker rights in the country. The article mentions Doha as a destination and Qatar Airways. I think it is important to look at not only this one incident Simpson investigated, but also the general practice of exploiting developing countries’ workers and forcing them to work in hazardous conditions. It is important to recognize that this was not simply a one time incident but that this is a systematic practice being used by international corporations in both Iraq and the Gulf

Singer: Corporate Warriors

Singer’s article I found eye-opening. I think most people realized that companies such as Blackwater operate but not on the scale Singer describes. The fact the Private Military Firms (PMF) are being used for everything from supply and training to actually fighting on virtually every continent of the world has major ramifications. The power balance between the private sector and governmental control changes with the increase of PMFs. Private industry by definition has much more autonomy and few restrictions and over sight than the military which is essentially control by public representation. Not only in the United States but also the world, PMFs are fighting for or with, numerous governments. Singer did not specifically go into this in his introduction, but do and how often do PMF fight for opposition forces that are not sovereign states? He points out when he states that “By removing absolute control from government, however, and privatizing it to the global, the state’s hold over violence is broken.” (p.18) In this sense governments are losing their monopoly over force by allowing the rise of PMFs on the global stage.

By examining the use of PMFs in the context of citizenship and military service it takes the obligation to serve off the citizen and puts it onto corporations and mercenaries. In this sense, as we all pay taxes, we are all being militarized as more and more government funds are being paid to PMF’s to carry out military functions. It occurred to me as I was reading the introduction, how to military personal feel about the use of PMFs. Since it is essentially outsourcing jobs they previously preformed, how must they feel that their jobs are going to others? For example, Singer points to the use PMFs as cooks for the marines, or to perform maintenance of military bases. PMFs have many different roles in the Twenty First century.

Side Note

On a side note I was rethinking Rodrick’s proposal for national service for young adults once they are 18. It seemed as if most of the class was opposed to this idea. I went to public school in Germany for a number of years, the German system of national service reminded me of our discussion and Rodrick’s plan. They have essentially the same three options. If you have a strong education you can apply to spend two years doing civil work such as helping at daycares or schools. This is very selective and difficult to get into. The other options involve being conscripted into the German military for only about one year. There, you can either request humanitarian work. One of my friends was deployed to Vietnam to help build schools as part of the German Military. The other option once you are in the military is to be trained as a soldier to serve in a non-combat role. The German government only sends volunteers to combat zones such as Afghanistan.

There are a few differences between Rodrick’s proposal and the system in place in German. Only males who have completed their secondary education perform national service. Unlike Rodick’s proposal, Germans do not spend two years performing national service. Like many people in class expressed, many of my friends did not like postponing their college education for a year but since it is part of being a German citizen they did.

Moscoso: "Could Immigrants Replenish the US Military"

O’Hanlon’s proposal to essentially import foreign nationals to serve in the United States military is just as unlikely to occur than Rodrick’s proposal for national service. While I have nothing against allowing foreign nationals to gain citizenship through enlistment into the military, his plan has several problems. For example, he states “importing immigrants to be soldiers would solve the military’s recruitment problems and provide the Armed Forces with more translators and experts in other cultures.” As it stand now translators and experts in their fields need specific clearance, this clearance cannot be attained be foreigners. I think it is important to acknowledge his point that if too man immigrants serve in the military then they and their families are not politically represented in the government.

Aside from these minor details, bring foreign nationals into the army many help solve some of these problems. Foreign citizens already make up a portion of the military, as he cites 40,000. The argument that it is un-American to have non-Americans fighting its war is not convincing. Historically the United States has had foreign nationals serve in the military. I would like to hope that decision makers in Washington share the belief that a life is a life and it should not be risked unnecessarily. Ultimately, I think it will become necessary to consider the use of foreign nationals in the military more seriously.

Bailey: The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force

Beth Bailey deconstructed the military’s advertizing campaign today as well as the history of an All-Volunteer Army well. By moving to an All-Volunteer Army she puts this in terms of economic factors. Prospective recruits as “consumers” and the military as the “product”. In this sense many factors influence the military’s recruitment. To a large extent this is true, military commercials all focus on different aspects to sell their “product.” I have noticed that the different branches of the military focus on different things. For example, the navy “See the world” as opposed the Marines who focus on transformation, even the motto we see on the commercials is “the FEW, the Proud, the Marines. The army for instance increasingly advertises this benefits such as job training and educational benefits.

One aspect I wish she could have spent more time on how recruits feel they are being mislead by advertising campaigns. This happens with all types of “products” but one can not return the army if they do not like it. The ad advertising 16 months in Europe seemed like a good example, here it is very easy to be mislead by this ad. The text makes the army seem like a mix between study abroad and a pleasant vacation. On the last page she touches on how soldiers are being misled. She gives the example of how the Europe ad was changes to read “In Europe You’re on Duty 24 Hours a Day, but the Rest of the Time Is Your Own.”(p.74) This I think highlights a key problem with an All-Volunteer Army, they offer a variety of opportunities but since they are the military and not just a commercial “product” this causes problems. Especially today when soldiers are actually expected to fight and when needed their deployments are extended beyond what the recruitment campaign made them expect.

I think it is important to contrast what the military is offering now as opposed to pre-1973. Bailey asserts that obligation and citizenship were reason for soldiers during the days of conscription. While honor, glory and sacrifice are still used as examples to join the military today they are not used to the same extent as they were used prior to an All-Volunteer Army. Now it would seem that the honor, glory and tradition the military offers is very much mixed in with all the economic benefits enlisting has.

Stahl: "How You Played the War on Terror"

I found it really interesting that the US military designed its equipment around the PS2 because they figured soldiers would already be familiar with it. The term military-entertainment complex describes it well I think. Until recently I never realized this is a two way process. Many think that the gaming industry takes from the military, few believe that the military is also borrowing from new virtual combat games.

 This essay reminded me of a program I watched recently. The military had enlisted a number of computer programmers, who had never seen combat, to make a realistic combat training program for new soldiers. The difference between this and some of the examples cited by Stahl was how these designs were based largely off experiences they had seen in movies and elsewhere, rather than actual combat.