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.