Offered for discussion without comment

[Partha]

No accusations - the thinking is original enough to our normal premises to deserve a hearing, imo.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174914/ ... anet_earth

[Kulaf]

Well I certainly don't find it at all surprizing that you find this article of interest. I am sure some of these are in your book collection too:

http://www.americanempireproject.com/index.asp

[Ddrak]

He's basically paraphrasing Chomsky (which I think he linked at the end): http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16101

It's not really a secret among non-Americans and it's probably the major cause of anti-US feeling around the world - the US simply acts like it has the right to be wherever it chooses and no one else does. It's absolutely hypocritical but also absolutely understandable if you look at every empire in history prior to the US because they all do the same thing.

If you honestly find those pieces "original" then you've not really been exposed to much non-US culture.

Dd

[Partha]

Note I said 'original to our normal premises'. I don't think much of the board has a great deal of insight into or respect for non-US opinion for whatever reason.

[Kulaf]

It's absolutely hypocritical but also absolutely understandable if you look at every empire in history prior to the US because they all do the same thing.

Dd

I think that is a bit of an oversimplification. The US is certainly NOT like every empire in history because the US does not engage in traditional empire building. I know of no territory under US protector-ship (Puerto Rico, Samoa) that is not free to dissolve that arrangement if they so chose.

If we want to face the hard facts.......there is a lot of US jealousy in the world also. I certainly didn't see most of the world complaining about US involvement when it was a choice between us and the USSR. If you want to truly compare "empires" then do so. Look at the brutality of previous world hegemons and compare it to the US.......or what the world would have been like if the US was not involved in world affairs.

[Ddrak]

I wasn't comparing empires at all - that's a complete strawman. There's no question that the US empire came about differently to previous ones (in fact, most empires come about differently). Like all empires though, it's the combination of economic strength and the relative peace offered by a strong military presence that makes it attractive and stable in the short term. Also, like all empires, it will probably fall due to more internal issues than external ones.

Sure there's some jealousy toward the US but not nearly as much as you'd think (at least in developed nations). There would certainly be a lot more if it wasn't for the previously mentioned idea.

What the world would have been like without the US is a ridiculous hypothetical and purely framed for your own self-worth, I'm sure. Usually questions like that assume the entire land mass was enveloped by a black hole or something, and the "great enemies" that were defeated would have behaved the same way with the US in a black hole. To be perfectly frank, had you remained a group of British colonies then the first thing you can imagine is Britain would have been one hell of a lot stronger and we'd more than likely be under Pax Brittania instead of Pax Americana. A stronger Britain would likely have stalled many of the wars in the 20th century, or we would have seen the continuation of British and French fighting by proxy rather than the world shaking itself up into a new order.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Well certainly it is a hypothetical........all questions of that nature are. But like the old saying goes......nature abhors a vacumn. There is always going to be a world hegemon.......someone has to be "top dog". Many "developed" countries around the globe sleep rather securely under the blanket of US protection in one form or another......and many of them don't have to devote nearly as much of their own GNP to defense because of that protection.

Personally I am all for the US getting the hell out of Europe, Japan and South Korea. I'd like Japan and South Korea to once again provide for their own military defense. They certainly have the economy to afford it and let them deal with China. End our protection treaty with them and let SE Asia deal with it's own issues because from my little crystal ball I see nothing but headaches for that section of the globe for the next 50-100 years. We need to quit expanding NATO because Russia is no threat anymore. Why the heck to we need to keep expanding a now defunct organization?

I'd love for the US to just sit back and pay its UN dues and bitch and moan about world conditions like every other country gets to.

[Ddrak]

Agreed on all points. I think the US needs to stop "giving" as much in the military treaties it makes - it should be more like a mutual defense treaty rather than a "we'll defend you and you just let us build little bits of effective US domain all over the place" treaties. I really don't see anything good coming from US bases in Japan than I would having a Japanese military base with the associated Japanese housing projects in the middle of Seattle (for example).

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Agreed on all points. I think the US needs to stop "giving" as much in the military treaties it makes - it should be more like a mutual defense treaty rather than a "we'll defend you and you just let us build little bits of effective US domain all over the place" treaties. I really don't see anything good coming from US bases in Japan than I would having a Japanese military base with the associated Japanese housing projects in the middle of Seattle (for example).

Dd

Bases on foreign soil allow the US to project influence in shorter time frames. Having to move a carrier group from Japan to NK (for example) has much more strategic worth than moving one from San Diego to NK.

[Ddrak]

Bases on foreign soil allow the US to project influence in shorter time frames. Having to move a carrier group from Japan to NK (for example) has much more strategic worth than moving one from San Diego to NK.

If Japan had its own carrier fleets based in its own harbors then the US wouldn't incur all the problems of having to maintain a base and the anti-US feeling it generates. It's far cheaper to have allies projecting influence from their own home soil than it is to occupy their territory with your own troops.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Bases on foreign soil allow the US to project influence in shorter time frames. Having to move a carrier group from Japan to NK (for example) has much more strategic worth than moving one from San Diego to NK.

If Japan had its own carrier fleets based in its own harbors then the US wouldn't incur all the problems of having to maintain a base and the anti-US feeling it generates. It's far cheaper to have allies projecting influence from their own home soil than it is to occupy their territory with your own troops.

Dd

Maybe cheaper, but less reliable. And slower. It essentially removes the rapid response factor of a forward base, if you have spend time convinging an ally to put their troops in harm's way for your interests.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Bases on foreign soil allow the US to project influence in shorter time frames. Having to move a carrier group from Japan to NK (for example) has much more strategic worth than moving one from San Diego to NK.

If Japan had its own carrier fleets based in its own harbors then the US wouldn't incur all the problems of having to maintain a base and the anti-US feeling it generates. It's far cheaper to have allies projecting influence from their own home soil than it is to occupy their territory with your own troops.

Dd

Maybe cheaper, but less reliable. And slower. It essentially removes the rapid response factor of a forward base, if you have spend time convinging an ally to put their troops in harm's way for your interests.

I still haven't had a chance to read the full article because every time I attempt to I'm interrupted, so I'm just following this conversation for the most part. Theres the obligatory precursor that I may have no idea what I'm talking about, which may generally hold true, but I'm stating it anyway.

That being said... Bases on foreign soil are never for the benefit of the host country, which is what people are supposed to believe. Lets take the Japanese bases into account. Obviously moving a carrier fleet to NK from Japan is quicker, and cheaper then having to move one from San Diego, however it doesn't matter what kind of fleet the host country has, as Ddrak suggests, because it's not essentially THEIR problem or their fight, it's ours. So perhaps as an ally we could use their fleet to our advantage to help ensure enough troops are rallied in a certain amount of time, but it has nothing to do with our own expenditures. You can't convince an ally to fight on your behalf unless there's a direct threat to them as well. If NK wants to nuke SK, or SK wants to topple NK then whats that mean to Japan ? Whats their vested interest in such an altercation ? Absolutely nothing. Now if NK wants to attack Japan then obviously they have a personal interest and they're going to want all the support they can get... and there in lies the problem. My own personal view is that no one wants to help another, but when they need help they scream and tantrum until the US comes in as Aide. If you want another example look at Iraq. In this case we have invaded their country, usurped their leader and government and left thousands of people with insecurities. Maybe they didn't have the best life, and they were always afraid they wouldn't live to see the next day, but there were also certain securities. I'm in no way defending any principle, i'm simply stating. Now these people have nothing, and to a certain extent the US is responsible and we need to offer aid and support, however thats not to say we need to be setting up permanent bases to be in their country long after we're no longer needed.

[Trollbait]

Japan is a horrible example. Japan will not build any sizeable force capable of truly countering a threat from China or North Korea.

I humbly submit Chapter II, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution:

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japa ... ution.html

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

[Kulaf]

That depends on how you define "benefit". Let's take Japan for instance. After WWII by treaty Japan could not project military force outside of its national boundries, and was to be protected by the US if attacked. Japan due to its constitutional obligation not to project force does NOT have to come to the aid of the US should we be attacked.

The "benefit" of US bases in and around Japan is two fold. One.....Japan has historically bad relations with its neighbors (Korea, China, Taiwan) and therefore did not have to directly communicate with any of them if they chose not to nor did they need to concern themselves with reprisal from them for war attrocities comitted by the Japanese military. Two.......post WWII Japan spent about 6% of its yearly budget on defense......contrasting that of the US's 25%+. Recently Japan has kicked in monies to the US to cover all forward bases in their country to make this arrangement a bit more fair.

So currently due to US protection Japan budgets less than 1% of its GNP on defense. That's a nice......."benefit".

[Ddrak]

Maybe cheaper, but less reliable. And slower. It essentially removes the rapid response factor of a forward base, if you have spend time convinging an ally to put their troops in harm's way for your interests.

So, in short, you're claiming the US has the right to put their troops anywhere they see their interests lie? How would you feel if each of the US's allies decided to put bases in San Diego, complete with essentially foreign jurisdiction within those base's walls? Say, for example, Canada decides they need a forward base on the US's southern border? Would you be ok with that, or is it a different story when the exact same situation is reversed? Placing a military base in a foreign nation is essentially the same as proclaiming them a vassal state. It's a straight up invasion of no matter what diplomatic terms you want to couch it in.

Like I said, I know the military reason an empire places military bases in foreign soil, and it's all about projecting power over allies and enemies alike. That projection of power has ultimately led to rebellion and the collapse of the empire through the combination of resentment and the fact the nation running the empire has far higher costs than its allies to maintain those bases. It's a good short term idea but a bad long term solution - you either need to totally subjugate the nation or treat them as an equal ally. If an ally won't put their troops in harms way for your interests then why the hell should they put their population at risk by giving you a staging point for a war they don't want to fight?


As for Ari:

If NK wants to nuke SK, or SK wants to topple NK then whats that mean to Japan ? Whats their vested interest in such an altercation ?

Exactly the same as the US's interest, if not even more.

In the case of the bases in Iraq not being permanent - the only way the US is leaving those bases is when Iraq allies with Iran and tosses them out. The US certainly isn't leaving there without being beaten out.


On Japan's pacifist constitution:

The US is responsible for that constitution. Now Japan is an ally they should be left to make their own decisions - if they won't maintain a force necessary to provide for whatever protection is actually necessary (which is very much open for debate) then why should the US taxpayer be doing it for them, and why should Japan feel they have to bow down to US interests and effectively cede part of their land for a US base?

Japan is a perfect example of the type of ally that should be encouraged to defend themselves.

Jecks is also being disingenuous - he knows full well that Japan maintains land, sea and air forces despite those lines in their constitution. They're just called "civil defense" or something like that.

Dd

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

If NK wants to nuke SK, or SK wants to topple NK then whats that mean to Japan ? Whats their vested interest in such an altercation ?

Exactly the same as the US's interest, if not even more.

Ok bad example but you still se my point. As far as the Iraq war goes then, what reason do other countries have to lend their support both monetarily or troop wise other then to protect their alliance with the US and the only reason they even CARE is because of the massive amount of US troops that could be sent to their own country in time of war for them.

Oh wait war isn't really a concept for more people anymore. their fathers and grandfathers fought in a war, and even with the current conflict for MOST soldiers isn't anything like the wars of their fathers.

The times they are a changin

[Embar Angylwrath]

If a foreign state invites US military presence, it's not an invasion Dd. You drank the koolaid man. The foreign nation also gets some sort of benefit, otherwise they wouldn't allow a US presence on their soil. Your whole premise falls apart right there.

[Partha]

Germany never 'invited' American presence there, Embar. Neither did Japan. They merely ratified the fait accompli, the same as Iraq will be forced to in allowing Americans to have their megabases all over Iraq.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Germany never 'invited' American presence there, Embar. Neither did Japan. They merely ratified the fait accompli, the same as Iraq will be forced to in allowing Americans to have their megabases all over Iraq.

That was post war, and both are free to ask the US to leave, if they want to. With the exception of Guantanamo (and an active war), the US will (must) leave foreign soil if asked by the government in control. Germany hasn't asked. Saudia Arabia hasn't asked. South Korea hasn't asked. Japan hasn't asked. I think we have around 700 or so foreign military bases, with a laorge percentage of them in Germany (81 I think) and Japan (37?). We have another 17 or so in South America and the Carribean, including Guantanamo. We have some in the middle-east, like Qatar, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait.. we haven't been asked to leave those either.

And when we ARE asked to leave, like New Zealand demanded (they refused entry intheir waters of nuclear powered ships), the US complied.

It's disengenious to say the US is an invasion force in countries where we are there with the agreement of the particular government. It's also dishonest for Partha to say we aren't the bases aren't "invited" to be on foreign soil, as that is simply a twisted lie. We continue to enjoy the invitation of foreign governments to be on thier soil. When they withdraw that invitation (again, ongoing wars and Guantanamo excpeted), we leave.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh.. Dd.. the US also has a base on Aussie soil. Are we invading Oz?