US-Iraq SOFA

In the Isaacs and Sharp report, I found it interesting that they listed the requirement of no permanent bases under the "Good" heading, I thought most military leaders wanted to keep a presence in Iraq to use it as a staging ground. But the argument of sovereignty, or perceived sovereignty, is a compelling one. It's one of the main issues in the debate about foreign basing, and it shows how prevalent the debate on basing is.

In "The Bad" section, they talk about the SOFA's chain of command and how it might impede necessary military operations. They state that "Some US military officers already are speculating that they will need to obtain arrest warrants before detaining Iraqi suspects or searching homes." (pg. 3) Okay, so law enforcement officials need to obtain those warrants before arresting Americans or searching their homes. I was under the impression that that was a constitutionally mandated right, and those rights are supposed to apply to all persons equally. Is it really a stretch that Iraqis are people, too? I understand that terrorism doesn't afford the luxury of personal rights and arrest warrants, but it that kind of reaction necessary? It seems like they (the military officers) are complaining and dragging their feet about something that they expect to happen in the US. I think it is incredibly hypocritical to complain about that in Iraq when it is taken for granted here that officials cannot unreasonably search your property or take you into custody. Are the officials saying that some of the rights Americans have are not applicable to Iraqis? I don't know where I'm going with this but that sentence really bothered me (maybe it's because of the Supreme Court course I'm taking this semester).

The Fadel article highlights how difficult it is to get a consensus of Iraq's policies because of the factious nature of the country. I'm curious to see what SOFA eventually passes, and how much it differs from the one that is currently proposed.

The Discussion over Basing

The article that I found the most interesting out of the 4 about different reactions to US bases was the article by Matt Apuzzo titled "Local Base Closures Causing Economy Fears". I thought the fact that the Defense Department hasn't turned closed bases over to the local governments because they need environmental cleanup is kind of ridiculous. I understand that environmental cleanup is incredibly expensive and time consuming, but it really does need to happen because the land can't be left like that. If the military isn't using t hat land but is keeping control of it and expects the local economy to recover on its own, the Defense Department is quite stupid. I guess I have a problem with the government refusing to do what it needs to do because they don;t want to put up the effort or the money. The Air Force Base in Tucson was dumping chemical solvents into unlined (or poorly lined) pits for waste disposal in the 1970s and tainted the entire aquifer under Tucson.... in the desert....pretty much the only source of water for the entire Tucson metropolitan area. By the time I was born the aquifer was less tainted, and the ground water is being used for water needs, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that the Defense Department is whining about fixing the problems it has caused to American soil. I don't know why this bothers me so much right now, but there are so many consequences of basing that the Defense Department can't even quantify (or qualify) and I get the feeling that the Defense Department oversimplifies it. I think I agree with Moon's general idea that you can't just look at one level of relations, you need to look at ALL levels of relations is order to try to figure out how to create new policies or change existing ones.

America's Lend Lease Empire/Okinawa

I think it is interesting to note that both articles emphasized that, while people were decrying the US's basing policies as imperialistic, they were not part of the traditional model of "Empire", at least my take on the definition of Empire. But I do think that there are elements of imperialism in the method of US foreign basing. But because there are some sorts of lend lease and negotiations, I don't think that basing can be called imperialism. I think that because there are many, many reasons why there are US bases where there are, it would be oversimplification to label all of them as "imperial outposts". Because of the original imperial expansion that started the whole foreign base process with "coaling stations", there was an aspect of competition of superpowers and geographic posturing, but that does not mean that those are the only reasons for basing today. The reasons now seem to be strategic convenience and maintaining or shoring up stability of the region, but also for the protection of US energy interests. I think that energy dependence is one, if not the, reason for modern basing in most cases, and I think that that is a particularly pathetic reason, we should be able to find our own energy and not fight for oil.

The main problem I have with the US's presence in Okinawa is that the Okinawans are trying to follow the democratic ideals of the US in removing them from their land, but the US is ignoring them and claiming they don't have the authority to work within the democratic structure of Japan. I think that that is a cop-out answer, we could leave (or at least minimize) our bases if we really wanted to, but its easy and cheap to stay there. It is hypocritical for the US to promote democracy and freedom around the world and then ignore Okinawa's plea for democratic resolution. But I guess it took (and we're not quite there) a long time for the US to enforce most of the democratic/freedom ideals espoused in the Constitution, so maybe its not surprising that the US hasn't helped the Okinawans. It doesn't help that the Okinawans are being trampled on by the Japanese's democratic government as well.

Corporate Warriors Reading

I was completely shocked by this article. I knew that there was some sort of privatization of military, but I had no idea it was so prevalent, which is probably the way the privatized military corporations want it to be. I thought it was interesting that the government has historically had a monopoly on the use of violence and that the PMFs were now beginning to shift that monopoly away from governments. What bothers me about that shift is the lack of accountability of PMFs. With government controlled militaries, they were ultimately responsible to the governments and the people who supported those governments. The PMFs are in a legal gray area where they are not regulated by national, military, or international law. I have a huge problem with that, if their line of work is capable of destroying live and countries, they should at least have some kind of legal restriction. I don't have a problem with privatizing the production of military goods, it seems like the market and private factories are much more capable of producing those goods than a government factory would be. I can see and agree with the progression of boots-bombs-bases, but I don't agree entirely with the progression to bodies (awesome alliteration, Kelly!). But killing and warfare is a different commodity that should not be allowed to exist outside of all regulation. It seems like it would be way too easy for those PMFs to destroy any government that they wanted, just based on who was paying them or their own agenda. Accountability is necessary for the use of force, which is why it should remain primarily the monopoly of governments.

Ok, so I think I'm going to stop ranting and ask a question. If the number of private military personnel in Iraq is now greater than the number of US military personnel, would it be logical if Congress approves a troop withdrawal plan but instead of all withdrawal, puts in PMFs instead of US forces and calls it a withdrawal? It seems like that is something that is possible and a sort of "loophole" that our government would use.

Another thing that this discussion of PMFs made me think of was the movie Lord of War (2005), with Nicholas Cage as a black-market arms dealer. I highly recommend this movie, it definitely makes you think about arms-dealing and how wars and conflicts are fought in modern times. It reminded me of our PMF discussion because he is not a government agent, but simply one man working on a private enterprise, not unlike a PMF. It also reminded me of one of the lines near the end, after he's been arrested: "You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil." It made me think about how I find PMFs dangerous, but at the same time, I can see how they do have some merit. Everyone should watch Lord of War, I think that it really relates to our discussions about militarization.

Mariscal and Astore- Enlistment

Astore points out that progressives and other liberals who critique the military, only do so because they opt out of really trying to understand the reasoning behind enlistment. The critique relies on the assumption that all aspects of the military are negative and really just rely on the exploitation of the people who do enlist, which are the majority male middle- and working-class elements of society. These people are often racial/ethnic minorities, and the progressives and liberals he's talking about are not. He thinks that it is easy for the progressives/liberals/elites to focus on the economic factors of enlisting and the continuing militarization of our society/culture and ignore any others. His main point is that until you try to understand the real reasons behind enlistment, you will never be able to direct our nation down a less militaristic path. And if your engagement with the military stops after you decide it's bad, you will never be able to understand the reasons for service.

One of Mariscal's points is that economic status is a huge factor in enlistment, a fact that is being manipulated by the recruiters, even though there are many other reasons for individuals to enlist. He argues that until the US government gives young people of lower economic status better opportunities for life and development, more and more of those people will enlist because they have limited options. This also creates more of an emotional burden on the young people who enlist because they enlist for reasons that are not met after they serve. He also explains that those reasons and needs cannot be addressed if, any time reasons for enlistment are discussed, it is seen as a question of patriotism: those who enlist and support are patriotic and those who question reason are unpatriotic. But that forces the discussion into black-and-white terms, which will never get anything solved.

I think both arguments have valid points. In order to understand why less economically well-off people enlist at larger rates, there needs to be an open discussion of the factors, reasons, and motivations for enlistment. Until that discussion happens, enlistees are going to be manipulated, ignored, and forgotten about because nothing can be done to address those reasons. I think that until people are willing to step out of their ideological comfort-zone, there is going to be a large gap between those who want to help soldiers in the ever-changing military and those who refuse to acknowledge the changes and get defensive. It really bothers me that so many people are so ready and willing to dismiss the reasons for enlistment on simple terms, nothing is EVER as clear as those people would want it to seem. I hate blanket statements about how people are thinking (and I know I just sort of made one myself), but how can anyone know what anyone else is thinking, it totally invalidates the principle that everyone is capable of forming their own opinions?

I know that I have a different perspective than a lot of people in our class, which I will share with anyone who wants to come talk to me about it, but I do not want to get into all the reasons why I find this troubling because it's a difficult topic for me discuss in front of large groups of people. So if anyone wants to know my story they can come talk to me about it, but I don't want to be the practically the only one who doesn't have a mostly negative view of the military. This is definitely an emotional issue for me personally, and I don't even know what to say anymore.

Thoughts and Questions for Pondering Drawn from Multiple Readings

I apologize in advance for any lack of continuity or organization for this post, but I needed to state some things I've been pondering before I could focus on the readings/topics at hand.

Karen Hall's idea of false witness is where the immediate revenge killing of enemy soldiers is linked to the process of grieving for a fallen comrade. especially if the soldier doing the killing did not witness the fall of their comrade directly. Hall example is from the movie Platoon, where one of the American soldiers kills several villagers after some of his comrades have been killed by enemy soldiers. After killing an old woman he remarks that she probably cut the throat of one of his fallen comrades. Where does this false witness end? Only after all available "enemies" have been slaughtered? Does the sense of false witness from that scene from Platoon also lead to some kind of justification for the extermination of Native Americans during the first couple of hundred years our country has been on this continent? I find it hard to personally relate to false witness, I would like to hope that I would not be drawn into that kind of mindset.

Karen Hall, Philippa Gates, and Stahl all discuss the appeal of the realistic portrayal of warfare in the entertainment industry. But does this kind of realism not also make people want to stay away from warfare? I know that when I saw Saving Private Ryan for the first time, I was considering the military/West Point/ROTC as a possible career. The opening scene made me NOT want to do join, the only way I could justify that image was that the technologies of warfare had changed significantly since WWII and that there were other military careers that did not involve getting slaughtered trying to take a stretch of unprotected beach/cliff. In that respect, I think that realism in war movies does not encourage military enlistment but it does lead to a sense of guilt that we, as civilians, are less brave and courageous than the people who put their lives on the line for (in the movies) nonexistent political ideals.

While we were discussing the Hall reading in class, I was wondering what people from the minorities being vilified in the Hollywood war movies thought of those portrayals as Americans and as descendants from those "enemies". How would those movies shape and twist their concept of their self identity?

The film Hollywood and the Pentagon was fascinating. I had no idea the Pentagon did that, but I didn't go out of my way to find that information either. I prefer to decide to see movies based on what I see on the trailer and how I'm feeling, I do not research movies before I pay to see them and I definitely do not rely on reviewer to make my movie-viewing decisions for me. If I did do that, I might have noticed some of the Pentagon influences. But I go to movies to be entertained, and I'm aware of the fact that if I go to see a war movie, there is going to be some kind of war message--pro or anti-- mixed into the story. If you go to see a war movie and think you will see a completely unbiased depiction of war, you will leave the movie irritated and paranoid. I don't see a major insidious ethical dilemma in the collaboration between the Pentagon and Hollywood, rather, I see it just as a symptom of our government, our society, and our culture. The Pentagon does not force directors to do as they say, if the director's artistic vision is being neutered too much, the director can walk away from the Pentagon's help, making their movie will just be slightly less easy. The director makes a choice to either accept or deny the Pentagon's help but that does not mean that the Pentagon controls whether or not a war movie will get made. The collaboration is not absolute authority by the government in all matters relating to the military, and because there are alternatives, no one's rights are being denied and directors can make the movies they want to with or without Pentagon aide.

I actually think the collaboration has a positive side too, for consumers of entertainment and not just the producers and directors of war movies, who wants to see a war movie with obviously CGI and plastic weapons? And if movies are how average people experience war, why not make it as accurate as possible? Who would be a better resource for authenticity than the Pentagon? I do not see this form of militarization as all bad or as all good, and to characterize it as one or the other is to ignore many subtleties.