"The New Geopolitics of Energy" by Michael Klare

The article by Michael Klare takes an interesting approach, by narrowing the issues of military presence in foreign countries, the Pentagon's plans, and the problem of dwindling resources into one heading. The Pentagon seems to be focused completely on the military control of resources around the globe, not cooperation and funding for new energy alternatives.

Historically, a majority of American foreign policy has been directed at controlling resources. Especially our relations with Latin America and the Middle East are characterized by the exploitation of resources. Now we are seeing our interest in oil played out through the Iraq war, many Americans even site oil as the primary reason for the intervention in Iraq. Since we couldn't learn to cooperate with Iraq we intervened. This kind of aggressive foreign policy has the potential to send American troops all over the globe in order to gain access to resources. We spend time bulking up the military in order to gain control over resources when we could be using that money to fund research for alternative energy sources. I can't wrap my head around that idea, that we would rather just take from other countries than find a renewable and reliable alternative source. Eventually resources are going to run out, whether its 200 years from now or 25 years from now, we need to come to terms with that and start working towards a solution.

I like Klare's last paragraph where he brings it back to the current election. Without saying names Klare clearly shows that a vote for McCain would lead to "greater reliance on imported fuels, increased militarization of our foreign fuel dependency and prolonged struggle with other powers for control over the world's remaining supplies of fossil fuels." (7) While McCain has tried to distance himself from the current administrations foreign policies and decisions, these things sound remarkably familiar. The American public has witnessed what this administration's foreign policy has gotten us into, perhaps its time to try a different route. As Klare puts it, "Rarely has a policy choice been as stark or as momentous for the future of our country." (8)

Stambuk and Sandars

The creation of bases in other countries before WWII challenged the national sovereignty of countries. Many of the leases that allowed for the bases to be built also allowed for the United States to have autonomous control of that area. To me it seemed like the bases were more like states being created in foreign countries. The example that Stambuk sites in Samoa makes it seem like the United States (and other foreign powers, Germany and Great Britain) simply took advantage of the fact that they could get the Samoan government to fold to their demands. They also did not take into account the needs of the Samoan people. The sudden increase in restrictions upset the general population and allowed for unrest within the country. I guess it was important to protect overseas interests and therefore neccessary to have some sort of launching point other than U.S. soil but I also think that the U.S. military needs to have some sort of accountability to the demands of the country and the people they are displacing with the construction of foreign bases. In comparison to the construction of bases during and after WWII, the construction pre-WWII seems minimal.

Sandars points out that 443 bases were created during the War. How did the United States even have time to build all those bases while being involved in the war? I can't even fathom the amount of money, people and supplies that went into 443 bases. This sounds dumb, but I didn't even know the U.S. had 443 foreign bases. Obviously I knew we had a lot, but once I see the number (not even the entire number I'm sure) it just seems to hit home. This post-war development signaled the United States' rise to power as the "global police." After the war the UK couldn't contiune its role as a super power because of the toll that the war played on their economy and country. The US was in a dominant position to rise to power, and combined with the threat of communism, the US did just that. Not only did US military presence increase around the globe but the US also began their role in protecting other governments from communsim. Suddenly we start seeing the involvement of US military intervention in Latin America and other countries. US supported military coups that put in power extremely repressive dictators througout Latin America. WIth the increase in bases we see an increase in interventions and a lack of recognition of nations' rights.

These two articles reminded me of the movie showed during the Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival last year about the Marshall Islands "Collateral Damage", and how a US military base there has caused devestation among the Marshellese people, and still nothing is done. The military base is a symbol of affluence and money while the native citizens of the Marshall Islands live in absolute poverty just a few miles from the base. Since the occupation of the Marshall Islands, the average life span has decreased to 62 years, the Islands have a 23% higher rate of TB than the US and from 1946-1968 67 nuclear devices were tested on or around the Island. The effects of the US military base on the Marshellese people is huge, but still the US stays in order to protect our interests, even if the native citizens are severely harmed in the process. 

Interesting Email

Did anyone else get this email? This is what I woke up to in my inbox this morning. Interesting considering all the readings we did about recruitment and the all volunteer force.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Officer Selection Station

Central New York

Phone: (315) 474-0606

Dear University Student,

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Captain Caine Goyette. I select some of America’s brightest college students and graduates to become Marine Corps Officers.

Selected undergraduates can pursue a Marine Officer’s commission through our paid summer leadership training program, called the Platoon Leaders Class (PLC), while near-term graduates enroll in our Officer Candidate Class (OCC) program.

THIS IS NOT ROTC. All training takes place during the summer. There are no classes or other requirements during the academic year and thus no interruption in your school activities.

We’ve intentionally designed this program with no obligation for active service. This arrangement lets you gain an appreciation for the opportunities and challenges associated with becoming a Marine Corps Officer before you decide if it’s what you really want to do after college.

If you successfully complete this summer training and go on to receive your college degree, the Marine Corps will offer you a commission. You will decide at that time to accept the offer and become a Marine Lieutenant or to decline it to pursue other options.

The summer training is conducted at Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Virginia, for either 6 or 10 weeks, depending on your expected college graduation date. It is an exceptionally challenging curriculum that is specifically designed to develop your mental and physical abilities and test your leadership potential.

Qualified applicants interested in aviation may be GUARANTEED FLIGHT TRAINING at Pensacola, Florida for instruction in becoming a jet or helicopter pilot after graduation.

Marine Officers will pursue one of a variety of occupational specialties. What sets Marine Officers apart from other services is the extensive leadership training, experience and management opportunities that all Second Lieutenants receive immediately after commissioning. INC., the magazine for business entrepreneurs, recently characterized the Marine Corps Officer program as “the best management training program in America”.

I am conducting informational interviews and accepting applications for the upcoming classes at Officer Candidate School. If this opportunity sounds interesting to you, call my office at 315-474-0606, or e-mail me at caine.goyette@marines.usmc.mil. If nothing else, the information that we offer will provide you with additional career options and will allow you to make a more informed decision about your future.

Additional information is also available at www.marineofficer.com.

Sincerely,

Caine Goyette

Captain USMC

Department of Defense Contracts

I looked at the DOD contracts given out on Oct. 1st, 2008 for the Navy and was absolutely horrified. For just the navy, the contracts equaled OVER a billion dollars. $1,538,305,324 to be exact. Three of those contracts were modifications to already received contracts meaning that the sum of the contracts is actually substantially larger. Maybe I was so horrified by the huge number because I can't even conceptualize a billion dollars. I just can't seem to wrap my head around such an enormous number, and that's only the Navy. Never mind the Army, the Air Force, and countless other administrations. It's no wonder the US government is in debt... what I'd really like to know from looking at the DOD contracts is actually what comes from each one. All of the contracts are followed by a blurb describing their purpose, but as a citizen I have no idea what they mean. I guess I never realized exactly how much it costs to keep the military running. As we get further and further into this class I'm beginning to understand that there is a lot to do with the military that I was completely oblivious to up to this point in my life.

"Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand" - David Barstow

What struck me the most about this article was the fact that independent news sources are not questioning the credentials, background, business ties and information that the military analysts supply. Also that the news sources don't apply the same ethical standards to the analysts. It is the duty of the news media to supply unbiased news to the American public, and by allowing analysts to spew Pentagon "talking points" all over the airwaves clearly goes against this notion. There is a clear conflict of interest when analysts are being payed by the Pentagon to say one thing and by networks to appear on certain shows. It appears to be all about the profits and ratings rather than the truth.

On top of the conflict of interest the other point that came as a surprise to me, was the fear that the analysts had of displeasing the Pentagon. "Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that 'some four-star could call up and say, 'kill that contract". This kind of thing should not be happening. I hold the networks, the Pentagon and the actual analysts responsible for this. Even when analysts knew the information was manipulated they still presented it to the American public. I guess the whole problem traces back to the fact that the war is a) not going the way the Pentagon had hoped it would and b) no matter what the Pentagon had to make it appear to be going well. Everyone is responible in this situation but ultimately it is the Pentagon and what I would call lack of morals. It is wrong to portray something differently than it is, especially when American lives, economy, budget and countless other things rely on the truth. The article definitely left me with an even less respect for the Pentagon officials than I already had.

The Pentagon Invades Your Life

I had no idea. Absolutely none. The first few examples that Turse gives in his article of examples of companies with Department of Defense (DOD) contracts didn't shock me. When he managed to fill five pages with examples I was shocked. Here are the ones that really got me: M&M Mars, Hershey, ESPN, Walt Disney, NASCAR, NFL, X-Men Comic Books, Apple, Google, Starbucks and Budweiser, and thats only a partial list of what's actually out there. I just don't understand. Why would half of these companies have DOD contracts? Starbucks? Do we need better coffee in Iraq? I guess I understand for some of them, its about advertising the military. Since it's an all volunteer force now it's more important to sell a product, but for others I'm totally at a loss. 

Before reading this article I obviously understood that the Pentagon gives out DOD contracts. But I thought it was for companies like Blackwater, Lockheed Martin and Bechtel, privatized military forces. Not companies that make everyday products for civilians. This just reinforces the idea that militarization is occurring all around us, without our knowledge. This part is made especially clear by Turse's character Rick saying "Thank god we never supported this war" Without any knowledge civilians are supporting the war. Everything we buy seems to be directly connected to the Pentagon and by extension the war in Iraq. So, basically, in order to protest the war people would literally have to live off the grid. 

The whole article just left me confused. I don't know how to react to this really. I'm astounded by the number of DOD contracts and the span of companies that receive them. And a little sad that people who don't support the war, can't seem to not support the war after all. 

Corporate Warriors

I'm not sure how to react to this article. I can't decide whether I like the idea of privatized military forces (PMFs) or if I don't. In situations where conflict escalates and the country can not quell the violence I tend to think that the interference of PMFs is generally a good thing. Like in Sierra Leone where the firm Executive Outcomes stepped in. Had they not assisted the government of Sierra Leone rebel forces could have potentially taken over the entire country and caused a lot more strife.

I begin to lose faith in PMFs however, when they start taking contracts based only on the monetary value. By basing assistance on how much people can pay for their services, morals and ethics seem to fly out the window. Granted, war is never really an ethical solution, I still find it somewhat terrifying that drug cartels and rebel forces can hire these firms to train their forces and fight alongside them.

There are so many complications to the idea of a "corporate warrior" that I can't seem to get my head around it. I seem to be going back and forth between accepting the corporate warriors and being horrified by the implications of privatized military forces.

On another note, Singer mentions the corporation Bechtel. Bechtel played a part in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the mid 90s. I only know something about this corporation because of a research paper for a Latin American politics class. Bechtel was responsible for the privatization of water resources in Bolivia. The company took water resources from the very poor, privatized them, increased the rates and basically cut of the poor citizens of Bolivia from access to water. Knowing this about the company makes me nervous about their involvement in other international problems. They took water, a basic human right, away from a whole group of citizens, so the idea of them rebuilding countries is somewhat scary to me. I'm again struck by the disregard of ethics in search of profit.