I love how the first prinicple in the conduct of U.S. space programs is :
"The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent with this principle, “peaceful purposes” allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests;"

.....for the benefit of ALL humanity, yet we get to turn "peaceful purposes" into the allowance of U.S. defense and intelligence to act in pursuit of OUR- singular- one nation- "national interests!"


hah, that's funny. Basically this whole thing is about the rights of the U.S. in outter space and how no other country can take them away from us, but also saying that space is a sovereign place with no one country allowed to "own" it.

There are so many different rules and guidelines for the different aspects of the militarization of space that it is difficult to get a full grasp of it.
There are national security guidlines, commercial guidelines, civil space guidelines and do much more.



This quote from the director of cyberspace ( Kass) in the 2006 news article is a scary thing to think about:
The Air Force has been operating in cyberspace for some time, but the efforts have been widely dispersed, Elder said. Also, cyberspace efforts until now have been mostly focused on defensive operations to protect the Air Force’s network, he said.
“The cultural change is that we’re going to treat it as a warfighting domain, and we’re going to actually focus attention and put priority on doing things in cyberspace and then balance it against air space and even terrestrial operations,” he said.

It's almost like every single aspect of life has been militarized by the U.S military. Looks like Eisenhower's last message to us about the MIC has gone out the window.

U.S.-Iraqi Tensions

"Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely."

There has always been rumors floating around in the media about making a permanent home for the military in the Middle East, but now it is confirmed. 

The Bush Administration will be following the "Korea Model" which refers to the presence of American military in South Korea for 54 years after the end of the war. 

After all that we have learned in this class about militarization, this present day example seems most obvious. The Bush Administration wants to set up permanent bases conveniently located around most of the world's oil supply and right near Iran, a country we are having a lot of tension with right now. 

This set up of more American bases only increases our power and presence around the world and is seen as a good strategic movement for our country.

Just think, they took over Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean to have close proximity to Iraq, and that is thousands of miles away from Iraq! Now they could be right in their backyard forever. 

I think that since the UN mandate expires at the end of 2008, the U.S. should respect and follow the rules. We're already in negotiations for a SOFA with them anyways!

The Backlash or Hoorah of Closing Down a Military Base

This is a tough subject.
I myself have never lived near a Military base, so I have no concrete idea of how I would feel or what it would be like to have one be put up or taken down where you live your life.
However, from what we have read and seen in class, I find myself seeing both sides of the story.
On one side you have the economic aspect of a base, that it provides hundreds or even thousands of people with jobs and a livelihood. In some towns the bases make up their entire economy! That would be devasting for a community who relies so heavily on a base to keep their economy up and running to be shut down. Would anything take its place? Would people have to move? There are so many questions about people's livelihoods at stake that I can see the argument in favor of keeping a base up and running.
On the other hand, you have the people who complain about the base simply being in their backyards ( especially foreign people with U.S. bases surrounding them) and the noise pollution they bring. While reading one of the articles I kept picturing the photo Kelly showed us in class taken by her from a street in Okinawa of the huge plane about to land , and it looked like it was landing on top of houses and buildings! That is just how close the base is to civillians living their lives. There have been studies done about the effects of the constant loud noise of a military base on people and especially children who live their lives exposed to it daily, and it is harmful!
Personally I would be more inclined to have the base shut down. What if someone I depended on worked at base though? I have no idea how I would feel. Probably in favor of keeping it I'm sure.
What would be perfect is if we didn't have wars at all and then there would be no need for Military bases and everyone could be conscience objecters and all live in peace : )
( Can you tell I just finished watching the POV documentary Soldiers of Conscience?!)

Diego Garcia

I think the island of Diego Garcia is the perfect example of militarization. 

I think back to the beginning of the semester when I wrote down, " I don't know" in response to Kelly's question to us, "What is militarization?" Now if somebody asked me that same question I could talk for an hour about all the different aspects of militarization we have learned of.

After reading the blurbs about Diego Garcia from the links provided to us, I realized the history sections didn't speak of the natives of Diego Garcia. I found out they were relocated to Mauritus when the British took over rule and colonized the island. According to a report by Christiane Amanpour, the British did not want any indigenous people left on the island and proceeded to ship them to Mauritus and the Seychelles.

The British used Diego Garcia for its natural resources and now both the UK and US military use it for a base with training purposes as well. 

Perfect example of colonization (militarization) in modern times.

US Military Bases on Okinawa

This article makes me feel bad for the Okinawans. First we kick them out of their own land and then they get tortured and executed by their own government.
Throughout his speech he talks about the history of U.S. opression on the Okinawans but then at the end of speech he asks the U.S. government " a partner in the Security Treaty and a nation known for its respect for democracy and human rights - will take the initiative in these painful issues."
If we are a nation known for our respect of democracy and human rights, why does our history of acquiring foreign military bases suggest the opposite, as Ota talks about in his speech?

Historical Roots of Our Global Footprint

" Nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it."- Thomas Jefferson

" Such a scheme of empire if indulged in, will destroy our republican system of government."- Congress 1860's

It's crazy to me that such words of cautioning against an imperialistic nation have gone by the wayside. Many politicians and leaders would be quick to say that America is not an imperialist nation but taking one look at Mother Jones Magazine's interactive map of U.S. bases around the world, it sure looks like we are. We have a military presence in every continent in the world besides Antarctica. 

 

Reading about the history of our nation and how we got to where we are today, I think it would be good for politicians and policy makers to go back and re-read their U.S. and World history books. There have been many warnings from past presidents and leaders cautioning the buildup of an empire but it seems their warnings have been ignored. 

 

It was interesting to read about how the U.S. acquired Hawaii and that our relationship with the Island started out as a "commercial reciprocity treaty" that was only supposed to last for seven years. When the King of Hawaii granted the U.S. exclusive rights to enter the harbor of Pearl River in the island of Oahu and establish and maintain a coaling and repair station to U.S. vessels,  I don't think he ever believed that his nation would fall to and become a part of the  U.S.

It is interesting to read that the first public indication of the U.S.' intentions of using military bases for our interests and "world peace" was given by President Truman in 1945. Thus publicly starting our persona of "police of the world." The Sandars article says planning for American military bases throughout the world occurred in the post- war era. I wonder why it took those World Wars to make the U.S want to establish permanent bases around the world  when there have been many wars before WWI & II, and establishing essentially a world empire was not one of the outcomes of the aftermath.

"The Real Matrix"

I am stunned.

I cannot believe that literally almost every company I have known and lived my life using their products or services has contracts with the DoD. I enjoyed Turse's article, it was an entertaining and interesting way to take a glimpse into an average person's life, ( an average person who also thinks they are far away from supporting the war) and seeing how intertwined consumerism and the military are.

Its funny to me that I have never once thought about my consumerism in connection with the military. I wonder how many people actually critically think about the impact they have on the world by what they consume? I guess no one I know has, becuase I've never had a conversation about it before in my life.

It only fosters my thinking that this world is completly run and ruled by money. I despise that notion but I guess it is the truth. I'd like to think that there is so much more to life than making money. Its jarring to grow up with one mind set and then find out the world is not what you thought it was! Life is still good though : )

I was suprised by some of the companies that have contracts with the DoD. Actually I was suprised by all of the consumer based ones. Its not suprising to see that manufacturing and technology companies have stakes within the military because one would think that is obvious.
Kellogs? Charmin? Crest? NBC? ....it goes farther than the name brand, but who owns the company. I think that is why I was so suprised, becuase we as a society only know the brand name on the package and usually dont know the parent company and all of its business partners and transactions.

All I know is that I am going to go home today and take a critical eye to everything I own and use and try to think about this article! Kinda cool that one article can make me open up my eyes so much.