Can Trump Drink the Pentagon's Milkshake?

Base data at Global Research

People who oppose war tend to notice two things.

First: the US has by far the biggest military in the world, spends the most money, has its forces and bases and weapons and technology spread out to every corner in the world, and is engaged in conflicts -- small and large, high-profile and clandestine -- everywhere.

Second: it's very difficult to arouse the general public in the US to want to change that.

We try moral arguments. We try economic arguments. People are really not interested.

*   *   *

So: it is intriguing to see the statement in Donald Trump's inaugural address, consistent with what he said in his campaign, about pulling back militarily:

We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own and spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.

I wonder what people think when they hear that "trillions and trillions of dollars." Does that make them want to see what would happen if money was taken away from the Pentagon and used in a way that they could actually see the benefit?

Let's not quibble for a moment with whether all that US military spending has really been directed at "defending other nations' borders." The immediate question for me is whether anyone -- Donald Trump or anyone else -- has the power to make any significant changes to the defense spending or any other aspect of the defense establishment in this country.

I'll be blunt: for the past eight years, we've seen what happens under the command of a nice, respectful person. Maybe we need to what a mean, disrespectful person can do.

I fully expect the defense establishment to seek to crush Trump if/when he attempts to make any changes. I frankly don't know how someone in his position manages to survive. And yet . . . .

Trump sent a signal with the bit about the F-35 spending. Of course, that was all theater. But I think the point we should not miss is that he does have a lot of support from people "out there" -- and the F-35 gambit was part of shoring up support as the buildup to something bigger.

A lot of us cringe at the "us vs. them" narrative, and the "disrepair and decay" narrative, and the "wealth = strength and confidence" narrative.  Although, to be honest, many of us have tried variations on these narratives -- we just found that they didn't work. So maybe what we find so cringe-worthy is that someone else has actually tweaked them into utility.


The Art of the Deal?

Make no mistake, Donald Trump isn't going to embark on a negative -- taking money away from the military -- without leveraging it into a much bigger positive:

We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

Can you spend "trillions and trillions of dollars" on that? You bet you can.

If Donald Trump knows one thing, it is that when you embark on building stuff, it creates a lot of jobs for ordinary people, and that money enters the local economy in a way that has a big multiplier effect.

I keep remembering John Maynard Keynes saying something to the effect that, if you can't think of anything better to do, just have people dig a hole and then fill it up again. And we've got a lot better things to do than dig holes.

Vision for a nationwide rail system
(See An Infrastructural Alternative to Military Spending)

Just a few weeks ago, I wrote a piece about how, if we hope to move towards a world beyond war, we need to shift our infrastructure spending -- to something like a national high-speed rail network. I didn't take quite the same tack as Donald Trump. But what if his approach gets us to the same place?

Sure, the Republican establishment won't be thrilled with this kind of Rooseveltesque program. (Oh wait -- that's right -- the Republican establishment didn't elect Donald Trump.)

It becomes a lot harder for the military establishment to crush you when people are feeling really, really hopeful about what your infrastructure development plan is going to mean for them and their communities.

A clue to how important this is to Donald Trump, and what his strategy is, may lie in his appointment of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary. (How is this picture not like the others . . . ?)


Last week I wrote about what might possibly be motivating Donald Trump to cut nuclear weapons. (Hint: think about where hotels go.) When it comes to trading military bases abroad for urban transit hubs in the US, maybe we should ask the same question. Need a hotel with that, fella?


Please share this post . . . .

An Infrastructural Alternative to Military Spending

The Trump victory has drawn attention to large parts of the US that feel left behind. Maybe the military-industrial complex was never really designed with their interests in mind . . .

As we consider how we can move towards a world beyond war, it is obvious that one key is to change the way we are investing our money:

In a world beyond war, it will no longer make sense to be in possession of massive amounts of infrastructure for carrying out war.

Although this axiom seems obvious, several factors make its application challenging. Some of those factors are general, and some are particular to the US, so important because of the degree to which it leads the world in military spending.


The circularity of military infrastructure spending

I think everyone can agree on the fact that, to some extent, military spending is not just a consequence of war, but also an instigator of it. Conversely, to the degree that war is going to go away, that going away can be hastened by an early decrease in military spending.

Prepare . . .

Yes, George Washington saddled the US (and the world) with one of history's most unfortunate bon mots: "If you want peace, prepare for war." It's a statement that is tedious to try to refute, but only because of its delightful symmetry (and its source). It just doesn't happen to be true.

Or at least: even if it was true once, that doesn't make it true for all time . . . .

For it is self-evident that there will be a moment when the market realizes that arms are out and something else is in -- much as the market is currently figuring out that fossil fuels are out and alternative energy sources are in. When that moment comes, profit trumps bon mots, and the paradigm change goes from being hesitant to being an avalanche.

This is especially true if the "something else" has a strong international/commercial emphasis. (Think tourists, not troop ships.)

"If you want prosperity, you need to be open for business."


The electoral stranglehold

The peculiar nature of US public spending is that it must be authorized by a Congress that takes its shape from our peculiar electoral system.

Without working out here the logical steps -- you can do this for yourself, at your leisure -- the fact is that electability at the congressional level is a function of the ability to bring dollars to the district from the federal budget, and the one sure instrument of nationwide distribution is military spending. No one gets to stay in Congress if they don't bring home the bacon. (See, for instance, "Congress’s Deep Hypocrisy on Defense Spending," Bonnie Kristian in TIME, March 17, 2016.)

Military bases in the continental US. (Militarybases.com)

Bases, defense labs, military contracting, military academies and colleges, and recruitment - they all add to the tab. The money is spread across the country according to a very logical calculus.

I don't think we're going to change the congressional system any time soon. But can we give members of Congress some different bacon to bring home?


A grand bargain

Everyone knows that domestic infrastructure in the US is in a woeful state. It should be possible to make a trade-off: cut spending on military, increase spending on infrastructure.

In my view, the problem with that proposition is that it is not enough of a sure thing. In other words, it's not enough to say, "We'll put together a list of bridges to fix and be assured that sooner or later we'll get around to your district." No, there needs to be a comprehensive project, such that at the very moment a given politician signs away the benefits of military spending in his/her district, the alternative spending gets delivered.

Vision for a nationwide rail system (US High Speed Rail Association)

An example of such a comprehensive system is a national rail system. Pictured above is a vision supplied by the US High Speed Rail Association. To become interested in the possibilities of such a system, it is necessary only to look into the rail maps of Europe or China.

The jobs and other opportunities created in districts throughout the US by all the primary, secondary, and tertiary lines in such a rail system would provide enormous incentive to move spending from military uses to civilian uses. And perhaps as people got a taste of the benefits that spending could provide nearby they would see the desirability of moving the money from far-flung foreign bases, as well.


What I have sketched out here is not intended to specify "the" answer; I put forward rail development by way of example. What I do hope is that this helps frame the problem for successful solving: a very different way of investing for national prosperity will become obvious the nearer we get to a war-abolition environment, and our task is to make it obvious sooner.

See also ...

IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War
What Will "Strategic" Mean in Our Children's Lifetime?
Cutting Defense: Are We STUCK?


Related posts

There is a growing movement of people focused on the "world beyond war." To many of these people, the question is not "if" but "when?" They share a conviction that the world will get there, and they see that it makes a difference how quickly (and in what manner) the world gets there.

(See WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?)




Adopting a "world beyond war" frame -- saying "war is going away; the question for me is how fast" -- implies optimism-realism, outcome orientation, and humility.

(See The Mind of the "World Beyond War" Activist)



It seems very hard to imagine having arrived at the world beyond war without the hand-in-hand changes in education, infrastructure investment, and the way society decides on communal action in the face of conflict.

(See Where to Put Effort for a World Beyond War)

The Election 2016 Diet: Invest 100 Hours for Peace

GOP in Cleveland . . . Dems in Philadelphia . . . Donald Trump . . . Hillary Clinton . . . Bernie Sanders . . . DNC . . . emails . . . Russians . . . NATO . . . FOX . . . CNN . . .  aaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

2016
I support ANTI-WAR candidates!
(Know Any?)

The 2016 US presidential election is one of the most perplexing ever for people who oppose war and militarism.

The Democratic candidate is running on her credentials as a tough hawk; the Republican candidate makes random remarks that oddly align with some antiwar positions. The circus atmosphere is bigger than ever and the third-party antiwar candidates that we might usually place some hope in are lost in the swirl of events.

This year seems to underline a difficult truth: in the run-up to the US presidential election, it always seems axiomatic that this will be the opportune time to make headway on the antiwar agenda; but in the craziness of election season itself it becomes obvious just how far out of the action we antiwar people are.

As I reeled from last week's GOP convention shenanigans and find myself drenched in another week of party-business-as-usual during the Democratic convention, I'm having a moment of clarity: these people are stealing my time.

There are, what, 100 days remaining until the election in November? Am I really going to let the next 100 days be commandeered by the minutiae and couch-quarterbacking of this election?


Consider: what if each of us claimed back the time that election 2016 is trying to demand of us? What if we said, "I am not giving you my attention?" What if, instead, we acknowledged that we know right now what we're going to do on election day, and we don't need any more TV coverage or newspaper stories or Facebook posts or tweets, and that instead we were going to use that time in a way of our own choosing?

What would you do with that extra 30 minutes or hour or . . . ?

Here's a radical proposal: what if each of us spent that extra hour a day over the next 100 days to simply think? Imagine saying, "I am investing these 100 hours in thinking deeply about what it will take to change the war-like ways of this country I live in. I am going to ask hard questions, confront what's really standing in the way, think creatively, and come up with new ways to be an effective peace worker. This is my time and I am going to make the best use of it."

Taking a break to think.  The results could be . . . revolutionary . . . !


Think about . . . how to get to a world beyond war FASTER . . .

Think about . . . getting networked with others in the peace movement . . .

Think about . . . how to use social media more effectively . . .

Think about . . . roles women play in the peace process . . . 

Think about . . . having difficult conversations . . .

Think about . . . the structural problem of "thermonuclear monarchy" . . .

Think about . . . US Constitution and what we might do differently . . .

Think about . . . all the people doing peace work, and what part YOU want to play . . .

Think about . . . creative resistance to war and militarism . . .

Think about . . . how people encourage more people to be their best and make a difference . . .

Think about . . . ? . . .


Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)




It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)











Election 2016 will come down to how the candidates propose to deal with ISIS, and whether they respond to the urgency of the Black Lives Matter movement.

(See To Grab the Win, Might Trump or Hillary Surprise Us?)

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?

"World War III's First Shot:
Will It Be Fired in the South China Sea?"

I pick up a Chinese language newspaper at the corner store in my Berkeley neighborhood every day, and almost every day there is an article about:

(a) US Navy activities challenging Chinese positions in the South China Sea; and/or

(b) China's activities to establish sovereignty in areas of the South China Sea; and/or

(c) China's military and naval buildup to try to get into the same league with the US.

The mainstream Western press has been reporting on these developments at an increasingly frequent rate.

Unquestionably a lot is going on in the South China Sea. I think we can choke on the detail if we don't try to step back and gain perspective on the situation.

What's the right way to think about what's going on in the South China Sea? I wrote a short post on this several years ago ... but I think it's time to address the question a bit more thoroughly.


The "Law and Order" Paradigm

USA as global policeman -- ever since TR.
(More on The Federalist website.)

On the face of it, there should be no controversy. There are laws about this sort of thing, and everything should be decided according to international law, e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So it can be very easy for US people to cast the US and its navy as the "white hats" who stand ready to "police" the situation, keeping things fair for everyone. One problem: "the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it." Well, that's awkward . . . .

In other words, before we say "Who is China to think they should be entrusted with being the traffic cop in the South China Sea?" we should first ask the question, "Who is the US to think they should be?"


The "Befitting a Global Power" Paradigm

Teddy Roosevelt with his "big stick" in the Caribbean.

As I look at what China is doing in the South China Sea, I can't help thinking of a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt treating the Caribbean Sea as a private lake belonging to the US.

[Not a bad time to make this comparison - President Obama just visited Cuba this week to attempt to reverse some of the effects of the past 50 years of antagonism between the US and Cuba.]

The US history of imperialism in its own backyard does not justify China in taking the same attitude; nonetheless, the fact that the US has really not come very far from its "We're a global power and what we say goes" attitude makes it a little difficult to wonder that China may think they should be following in the US' footsteps.

I think one thing we all need to do is notice the double standard that is applied to China. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. China can legitimately be asked to exhibit a 21st century form of non-militaristic global power when the US decides to even make a head fake in that same direction.

(By the way, there certainly must somewhere exist a really clever cartoon updating the Caribbean-as-US-lake concept, i.e. South-China-Sea-as-China-lake, but everything I've seen so far is predictably based on boring dragon and Great Wall imagery.)


The "Neoliberal" Paradigm

To many people, it probably seems that the issues in the South China Sea should just be viewed as a matter of property rights. Stuff (e.g. oil) is there for people to exploit, and everything has a price; in light of overlapping claims, the parties simply need to define rights and compensate each other accordingly.

In other words, "we should be happy with the solution, as long as it smells like capitalism."

Oil and gas in the South China Sea
(Source: Grenatec)

But aren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?


"A Piece in the Larger Puzzle"

US Military in the West Pacific
(Source: Thomson-Reuters)

I can't help believing that, from a Chinese perspective, the question of whether it is "right" for China to grab (and militarily build up) bits of land in the South China Sea can only be considered in light of the precedent established by the US in grabbing (and militarily building up) bits of land in strategic locations through the Pacific (and worldwide).

Looking at a map of US military installations in the Western Pacific brings to mind the old quip, "How dare they put their country so close to our bases?"

Moreover, of at least equal importance to bases is the terrifying firepower of US carrier strike groups. Is it any wonder that China is building up its navy? Though it may never come close to the strength of the US navy, China's navy may have the ability to close the gap in its own part of the world.

Maybe the South China Sea is just a sideshow.

Maybe what we should really be talking about with China is a military stand-down, followed by a military build-down.

(To be continued . . . . )

Additional resources:

Map showing overlapping claims in the South China Sea



Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

The Secret to Understanding the "New" U.S. "Pivot to Asia"

One of two Chinese stone lions flanking the entry to
"10 Div Ave" -- the building housing the
Harvard-Yenching Library.

When I showed up on campus for my freshman year in college about 35 years ago, I quickly glommed onto the idea of giving East Asian Studies a try.

There were many reasons this seemed like a good idea.  Just a few of them:

* The U.S. had just withdrawn from Vietnam. I had grown up on a daily diet of news reports of the war. It seemed obvious to me that we had a lot to gain by approaching Asia from the standpoint of knowledge rather than that of belligerence.

* Mao Zedong had recently died, but not before initiating the opening to the U.S. In 1977, there was a feeling of great imminence about China.

* The idea of learning the Chinese and/or Japanese languages -- so recondite (at least to Westerners) -- was irresistible.

* When would I ever have the chance to take a deep dive into the unknown -- such as this -- again?

And so I dove in . . . .

Big Gulp

The organizing principle for the field of East Asian Studies was to get us students to focus on one or both of two major cultural areas -- China and Japan -- and (with luck) to wean us from some of our U.S- and Euro-centrism. The thinking was that these two "areas" -- China and Japan -- each provided an enormous body of new information for students to try to get navigate.

China's Response to the West:
A Documentary Survey 1839-1923
by Ssu-yu Teng and John K. Fairbank

In general, WWII experience was de-emphasized, though it might seem to be one of the nearest at hand to explore.  I think the concern was to avoid getting sucked in to the gravitational field of what Americans already thought they had figured out about that experience.

The trope of "the response to the West" by Japan or China was, in general, substituted for what frequently seemed to be our natural reflex: talking about "the U.S. experience in (fill in the blank)."

I'd like to say that I had a vague sense that something was missing, or not quite right about this framework. But the truth is that I was swimming in so much new information that it was all I could do to keep my head above water.

I noticed that certain topics -- such as Korea, or Vietnam, or the Philippines -- were not given much attention. Everyone I knew carried around mental lists of things they wanted to learn more about . . . someday . . . when they had whittled away further at their must-do list of characters to memorize and books to read and courses to take and trips to make.

In my senior year, for instance, I dove with great gusto into the John Fairbanks' Ch'ing Documents: An Introductory Syllabus, on the theory that it was essential that I be able to read court documents from the 19th century (in Chinese, in the formal bureaucratic lingo) in order to fully appreciate "China's response to the West."

The Missing "Area"

I have never stopped taking runs at getting my arms around "East Asian Studies." It seems that as I grow older, I run out of steam faster and faster.

But as I get older, I also seem to be more willing to challenge orthodoxy.

Emperor Hirohito: Coronation photo

I've been doing some reading which has been very provocative in light of my concerns about problems of war and peace. After books about the bombing of Hiroshima; dissidents in contemporary Japan; the maneuvering around Japan's August 15, 1945 surrender decision; and one about the discourse around race in Japan and the U.S. during WWII, I continued on to read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. It was here that all the pieces seemed to come together for me.

The Bix book conveys the sense, through the eyes of Hirohito and others, of the increasing frequency with which developments were converging on that part of the world with each passing decade of the 20th century. Bix is centrally concerned with the responsibility of Hirohito for the war. Part of that involves seeing how deeply involved he was in understanding the activities, capabilities, and intentions of England, the U.S., Russia, and other countries as they related to the widespread geography of the Pacific region.

I felt challenged to see what people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century: something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

It occurred to me that we can say there is a third "area" -- of equal importance relative to "China" and "Japan" -- that is the proper third leg of "East Asian Studies." That area is "the Pacific (as a field for empire in light of post-19th century technology)."

Clearly, this has a lot to do with the U.S. and its imperialism. But it also invites us to go beyond just seeing the U.S. as only factor at work in this area.

We've all been taught that the "Aha!" moment for many late 19th century political leaders was the advent of Alfred Thayer Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History. But it had never before occurred to me to view that -- as many people likely did at the time -- in light specifically of the Pacific Ocean, including its geographic and political dimensions. 

Fall Semester 2014

I'm hoping that my new "troika" approach to East Asian Studies -- China, Japan, and the imperialized Pacific -- will help me make sense of developments in that part of the world.

So here are some of the "study assignments" I've given myself for the weeks and months ahead:

* what are the pros and cons of Chinese naval development?

* how is new technology changing the face of militarism in the Pacific?

* is the Pacific more than just a patchwork of bases?

* what would it take to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapons-free zone?

* does the Pacific need a "traffic cop"?

* is the Pacific ecosystem at risk?

. . . and more . . . .

I'm thrilled -- and a little scared -- to imagine what I might discover.

Can we adopt a new perspective on Pacific affairs?

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

Just as it did in 2001, the U.S. has had another close dangerous encounter between one of its surveillance planes and a Chinese fighter in the air near the coast of China.

Like the 2001 event, it's making a lot of people ask what the hell the U.S. is doing provoking China where they live.

(See Boeing: Where There's Trouble . . . )

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

 (See Now HERE'S an "Asia Pivot" I Can Believe In! (Marshall Islands Sues Nuclear "Haves") )

Just like a family that has extra rooms in its house which inevitably become filled with stuff, the U.S. has thousands of bases -- here, there, and everywhere -- that inevitably create the "need" to spend.

(See What Will "Strategic" Mean in Our Children's Lifetime?)

What Will "Strategic" Mean in Our Children's Lifetime?

U.S. military bases (and oilfields) in the Mideast

We are likely to wake up some day and realize that we have succeeded in evolving our economy away from fossil fuels -- toward a zero carbon economy -- and that means our "interests" in the Middle East will no longer be so strategic any more.

What will be strategic then?

Despite the temptation to name some other part of the world -- to pivot to the idea that now China is where we need to be in control -- perhaps the answer is: "strategic" will no longer have to do with how much stuff we can get, but with how successful we can be at spending less.

This leads me to wonder: will the next revolution lie in reining in the out-of-control network of U.S. military bases around the world?

"High-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles pre-pared and stored
by the 2d Battalion, 401st Army Field Support Brigade, stand ready at
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait." (Photo by Galen Putnam, 402d AFSB Public Affairs)
(From "Commanding an Army Field Support Battalion" by Lieutenant Colonel
Michael T. Wright, Army Sustainment, March-April 2012)

Just like a family that has extra rooms in its house which inevitably become filled with stuff, the U.S. has thousands of bases -- here, there, and everywhere -- that inevitably create the "need" to spend.

It's a very Zen idea -- that perhaps the most impactful thing we, as a nation, could "do" is to "do" less.

But perhaps it's necessary to explore. Perhaps we have gotten caught up in the wrong argument, i.e. whether this or that military action is right or wrong, justified or misguided.  Perhaps we're fiddling while Rome burns. Perhaps we have to simply cut the discussion off at the knees and say, "What would be good would be a massive paradigm shift in what constitutes desirable activity -- economic and otherwise."

How could we possibly make this happen in our lifetime?

U.S. Military Bases
Posted 24th October 2012 by Toni Nicolle

More detail at . . . 

May 9, 2014: "Hagel Renews Push for Pay Cuts, Base Closings," by Richard Sisk, Militar.com. "The HASC [House Armed Services Committee] markup provided for a $552 billion base Pentagon budget and $85 billion for overseas contingency operations while rejecting Hagel's proposal for another round of BRAC. Senate leaders have also warned that any move to close bases had little chance of succeeding in an election year."

March 31, 2011: "Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases: Closing U.S. military bases overseas is a key part of moving the money to meet human needs at home and abroad," by Sukjong Hong and Christine Ahn on Foreign Policy in Focus. (Emphasis in this article is est. 70 military installations and bases in South Korea, and the new joint U.S.-South Korean naval base under development on Cheju Island.)

April 14, 2009: "US Military Bases on Guam in Global Perspective," by Catherine Lutz

Detailed guide to potential closures of overseas U.S. bases provided by Carlton Meyer

9 More Ideas You Won't Hear

at Chicago Ideas Week . . .

Related posts

What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





I'm grateful to my friend, Jim Barton, for framing the problem in a way that is adequately broad, and yet contains a measure of hope.  It's about the future, and whether we have one -- or can construct one -- he said.  Young people today are asking: Do I have an economic future? Does the planet have a future? Will (nuclear) war extinguish everybody's future?

(See A FUTURE: Can we construct one? )










People are talking about cuts to the military. It couldn't happen to a more deserving half of our national budget. HOWEVER . . . we need a lot more people jumping into this debate, because the cuts being talked about are too timid . . . AND because the most dangerous and illegitimate (and frequently illegal) forms of military force are being advocated for the "efficiency" and "cost-effectivneness."

(See Talk of the Town: Shrink the Military )



What would happen if every member of Congress "adopted" a foreign military base and demonstrated what would happen if all the money spent there were brought home to local districts? Do you think the constituents would welcome THAT initiative?

(See How About a REAL (Tea) Party? SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY BASES! )












The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)





Right now we're "stuck" -- the portion of the public that wants to cut military spending has hovered in the high 20%s since 2004; it just can't seem to break the 30% barrier. (The percentage of people in favor of expansion is about the same.)

(See Cutting Defense: Are We STUCK? )





Other related links

October 14, 2014 - "Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change" by Coral Davenport in The New York Times. Predictably, the Secretary of Defense did NOT suggest responding to the climate crisis by burning less fossil fuel. "The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises."

Talk of the Town: Shrink the Military

People are talking about cuts to the military.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving half of our national budget.

The New York Times yesterday, in an editorial entitled "Reality Sets In" had a few choice words:

"Skepticism is essential when it comes to the military’s promises and projections."

"[To modernize the submarines, bombers and missiles that carry nuclear weapons] would seem especially ill advised given that nuclear weapons are being reduced and should be reduced even more."

"It has been clear for some time that America can no longer afford unrestrained military spending. There is no alternative to making tough decisions about what is essential for the country’s defense and doing a more ruthless and creative job of controlling costs."

What about the substance of the cuts being advocated?

* management reforms: $22.4 billion (SOUNDS GOOD)
* reduction in active-duty forces and nuclear forces: $21.4 billion (OKAY)
* reduce purchases of jets, submarines, missiles: $5.7 billion (CHECK)

HOWEVER . . . we need a lot more people jumping into this debate, because the cuts being talked about are too timid . . . AND because the most dangerous and illegitimate (and frequently illegal) forms of military force are being advocated for the "efficiency" and "cost-effectivneness":

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday that future investment should focus on Special Operations forces, unmanned surveillance aircraft and cyberweaponry.

Moreover . . . there is no mention of the big structural problem: the web of bases that spans the globe and assures that the U.S. will always need more military stuff to put on those bases, and more people to take care of the stuff, and more people to take care of the people, and yet more stuff for all those people. (And then we need to give them missions . . . because we just have to use it, right?)

Shrinking Defense: Welcome to the real Tea Party.

Related posts

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?

(See Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement?)

What would happen if every member of Congress "adopted" a foreign military base and demonstrated what would happen if all the money spent there were brought home to local districts? Do you think the constituents would welcome THAT initiative?

(See How About a REAL (Tea) Party? SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY BASES! )

What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To?

Elections for Congress will be happening over the next twelve months, and I keep asking myself, "Will anything be different this time?"

What would it take for us to translate our dissatisfaction with what's happening in Washington into real change?

Despite what some people say -- "it all comes down to money" -- I think it is possible for new people to get elected to Congress. However, I think that can only happen if their positions are brutally simple and carefully chosen.

I suspect that people challenging incumbents need to boil it down to two or three things:

* the economy
* keeping the government under control
* the wild card: crisis du jour

As people who are working for peace and justice, then, we need to ask ourselves: Can a peace and justice agenda be advanced under these kinds of conditions?


"It's the economy, stupid"

I believe that, if we are honest with ourselves, we will recognize that the overwhelming factor affecting how people relate to candidates is how they are doing economically and whether the candidate's approach is even in the same solar system with their needs.

("It's the economy, stupid!" was the 1992 Clinton campaign's way of reminding themselves of this reality.)

Since no one really knows what federal government action can best affect economics of individuals, we are subjected to a biannual comedy of errors in which abstractions are thrown around -- shrink the debt, infrastructure investment, raise taxes, lower taxes, simplify taxes . . . .

The one thing that seems to be a sure-fire vote-getter is in-district spending.

But when are we going to have challengers point to the obvious fact that military spending is a sure loser? There is no question that U.S. "defense" spending creates a great flushing sound as dollars are exported out of the country to be spent at the hundreds of bases the U.S. operates in foreign countries all over the world.  What is less obvious but far more important is the long-term costs that we incur when we subject our service men and women to injury, bringing in train a process of decades and decades of health care efforts to heal them.  (And this does not even begin to count the cost of the injuries we inflict on those who are not our citizens.)

Can anyone name these true costs -- much less challenge them -- and still hope to be elected to office?  And yet can we ever hope to truly make our economy healthy if we don't address them?

Related post

What would happen if every member of Congress "adopted" a foreign military base and demonstrated what would happen if all the money spent there were brought home to local districts? Do you think the constituents would welcome THAT initiative?

(See How About a REAL (Tea) Party? SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY BASES! )




Big Government: Keeping The Beast at Bay

Every challenger has an inherent advantage in being able to credibly challenge government overreach.

There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism.

The bad news is that a lot of energy has been mistakenly directed at the health care program, as if that is where the biggest threat of federal government overreach is.

I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

Related post

The Amash Conyers Amendment to curtail NSA spying was advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after the Snowden revelations. It narrowly failed -- in part due to the votes of some so-called "progressive" Illinois representatives.

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE! )






The Wild Card: Crisis Du Jour

It's probably true that the electorate doesn't care much about foreign affairs, and thus an antiwar stance per se doesn't serve a challenger very well.

Where foreign affairs do come into play is when there is some kind of "crisis" that serves to focus attention on politicians' expertise/savvy in foreign affairs.  This inherently tends to favor incumbents, because they are more likely to have some form of involvement in, or at least orientation to, foreign affairs, by virtue of their service to date.

The problem is, no one can tell where the next crisis will come from, right? Well . . . not quite . . . . Despite the narrative that says we live in a "dangerous world" and that we need our government to "keep us safe" from people who "have it in for us," the truth is that the U.S. government has its tentacles in every region and country around the world, continuously prodding and provoking.  Does it seem like there's always some new crisis, somewhere? With good reason . . . .

Related post

More than anyone else, the beneficiaries of permawar are the politicians who thrive on the power to make and control wars.

(See J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar)







More related posts

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?

(See Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement?)

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")