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.