Welcome to PatsFans.com

737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,032
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    Here is an excerpt from a book written by a lefty, Chalmers Johnson.. the book is called "Nemesis, the last days of the American Republic". It is an interesting point, as we now have 2.5 million folks spread all over the world..imo we are spread too thin.

    From Wikpedia, some info on the author:
    Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long time cold warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its massive armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.

    http://alternet.org/story/47998/

    With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it's time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire.
    More stories by Chalmers Johnson
    The following is excerpted from Chalmers Johnson's new book, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" (Metropolitan Books).

    Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial "footprint" and the militarism that grows with it.

    It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense churning in the numbers of installations.

    The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush's strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up.
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,643
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +127 / 7 / -13

    Wel if we were extorting wealth from our colonies he might have a point. I agree that many of the bases (especially in Europe) are relics of the Cold war and should be closed. Whne this is brought up the locals scream bloody murder, thay may not like US but they like our money.
  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I can't help but remember that when the Filipinos said 'Yankees go home!!'

    We left.

    I expect every other location, with the exception of Cuba, would be given the same courtesy. Besides, how many of these 'bases' are like Hanscom? For non MA residents, Hanscom AFB is located about 15 miles NW of Boston and hasn't had even one plane based there in years.
  4. ArmyPatsFan

    ArmyPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Good point...alot of these bases are used for "what if" scenarios and house usually a very small number of US forces in order to maintain a presence. They are pretty much used as a jump base to project into a theatre......like Taszar Hungary was for Bosnia.
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,835
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    So true. Just look at Germany a few years ago.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    It doesn't matter what the present geo-political conditions are. Permanent American bases outside of American terrritory during peacetime are wrong and, at minimum, imperialistic as the article describes. We have no business behaving like that which the Founders loathed, - an Imperial power. It's absurd.
  7. ArmyPatsFan

    ArmyPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    wow....so you agree that the all the aid and disaster help the US military provides is absurd? The ability to project into Afghanistan so quickly is absurd? Any idea how long it takes to build up the infratructure necessary to support any type of US force....or how much our presence helps in some of these regions? Your blanket statement washes over all of this and is absurd. I agree that 737 (if this is the real number) seems high and US forces are in the process of closing many bases....but you seem to discount all the good some of these bases do.
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Not at all, and I didn't aim this as any individual who benefits from a globally projected military, but I fail to understand how any of the "Good" that these bases provide, while intrinsicly good as far as intent goes, more often than not backfires on us internationally IMO.

    Because of our international presence and buildup, I think the government has removed one more safeguard that used to exist, and that is the logistical problems deployment meant in terms of the time needed to actually invade and not be able to turn back once we commit. A rapid response to the WTC attacks was needed at the time, but proved ineffective as OBL is still on the loose. Maybe a little more time to think prior to the invasion of Iraq might have allowed the People to learn that all the justifications for going to Iraq were BULLSH-T! The deployment and execution of the invasion happenned much more quickly than might have in 1941.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>