One down, over 700 to go…
July 31, 2008
Ecuador has told the Bush administration that it is refusing to renew the lease for the u.s. Air Force at Manta once it expires next year. Let’s pray this is the beginning of an anti-imperial trend and that we will soon see the closure of the rest of the 700 or more military bases that the united states maintains outside of its own borders.
Advertisement
47 Comments
Comments are closed.
I like how you don’t capitalize United States
Feel free to imitate…
Again, this is a distortion of the historical sense of empire… no empire maintains military installations only with the approval of the local populace… they do what they want, they locals’ opinion being irrelevant. And again, they also maintained political rule in the locale. Sure, they sought to assuage the vanquished, to make governance easier, but the empire got what it wanted.
Hyperbole only creates distractions, and hence detracts from the strength of the overall argument.
Chris Burgwald,
What term would you use to describe more accurately a nation with 700 military bases beyond its borders?
Chris – that’s the sort of “well, technically…” answer that tends to prove the claim being disputed.
Why doesn’t, say, Germany have bases in the US? Or Japan? Or, to pick a WW II ally: The UK? Why isn’t there a big UK Air Force base in, say, Texas?
Why doesn’t, say, Germany have bases in the US? Or Japan?
My guess is that we didn’t want Nazis here?
Or, to pick a WW II ally: The UK? Why isn’t there a big UK Air Force base in, say, Texas?
If they had been the ones sacrificing their lives to save us from the Nazis, that might have happened.
Again, this is a distortion of the historical sense of empire… no empire maintains military installations only with the approval of the local populace… they do what they want, they locals’ opinion being irrelevant.
Actually, during the height of the Roman Empire, namely, the Pax Romana, the foreign provinces happily hosted the occupying legions insofar as Augustus and his successors continued to build up the infrastructure (e.g., roads, security in travel, commerce) for the benefit of all those ruled.
Poli – Yes. And more specifically, the elites of the occupied provinces happily hosted their occupiers.
I agree with Chris B. about this – “Hyperbole only creates distractions, and hence detracts from the strength of the overall argument.” Similar actually with the lack of capitals for the term United States. If the the goal is to “make a point” then it is successful. But if the goal is to engage opponents in meaningful and effective dialogue then it fails.
Chris is correct about hyperbole. However, the verdict is not in on whether or not Michael employed it. As Kyle asks, if the U.S. is not imperialistic in its placement of 700 bases outside its borders, then what is the definition of “imperialistic” and how is it the case that it cannot be applied to aspects of U.S. foreign policy?
Michael J. is a pseudo-intellectual who likes to incite like little brat kid in 3rd grade. The definition of the words empire and imperial are very simple. The United States (with capital letters) fits neither definition. He thinks its cute to stretch definitions for the sake of “argument”
That said, the Ecuadorian government and people have the right to request we leave, and unlike an imperial occupying force, we will leave. However, the U.S. will take all the anti-drug “assets” and operations and any economic improvements that may have been a result of a base. Next thing you know Michael J. and company will be complaining that we need to send more “aid” to the people because of the instability and drug lords overrunning the government.
UK has quite a large army base in British Columbia….
Also the United States constantly has foreign militaries present on US soil training with the American military, espiecially during “Red Flag” exercises in Nevada and Alaska (foreign air froce participants in “Red Flag” include Singapore, Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, Germany, and soon Russia among many others)…. Singapore almost exclusively trains on US soil too
Like many lists of this nature saying we have 700 bases is a tad not true.
For instance I guess as the Army Does the Marvelous Mansion in Europe the Chateau Gendebien is a “base” but besides being a nice place for the Head Brass to live in Europe it is not really a base as we would think of it. Like wise I do not think most Americans or anyone else for that matter would consider the Garmisch Golf Course a base however it is listed on the Installation list as well as is the General Patton Hotel. Also these Bases also include various hospitals and other assorted items
In reality no including the Iraq theatre as of 2003 we had 15 large installations overseas, 19 medium installiations and 668 small installiations. Of course as I pointed out above this 688 figures includes such thing as golf courses
To give you a sense of what we mean by small in Louisiana we have one large Army Installation (Fort Polk of Course) and 86 small installations. TO call these 86 small installations “bases” in most cases is to stretch reality.
I should note this was not an actual base but as the link said “The US has used the Manta base for the past decade to lead anti-drug flights throughout Latin America” We can debate if this is US Imperalism gone wild or we should be cheering this move I suppose
I know people must think I am kook for mentioning this but many of these various assets besides performing Humantarian assistance and search and rescue also provide a defense against Pirates/ Piracy. A problem that had never disappeared and in fact is in on the rise
If there is one analogy to Imperial Rome it is that these bases play some role in protecting American Citizens abroad. One might ask ask as to the question of peace was it helped that just a few years the United States Military had the assets to remove thousands of folks from Lebanon during that war.
One might ask what would have happened if those American Citizens had not been able to leave and got caught up in that war what would have happened then.
Wars have started over such things. While no wars have occured in Germany , Japan and South Korea (where the bulk of these assets are located by the way) since the hostilities of decades ago ceased which gave rise to the reason the bases are there.
Michael J. is a pseudo-intellectual who likes to incite like little brat kid in 3rd grade.
This would be an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy. It is somewhat similar to what 3rd graders do, in fact, do when they cannot think of a response.
The definition of the words empire and imperial are very simple. The United States (with capital letters) fits neither definition.
Still waiting on that definition. We’ve been asking for it for awhile now from those who insist that the U.S. is not imperialist (N.B.: Michael did not call the U.S. an “empire” but implied that some foreign policy is imperialist; is like calling a person’s actions “evil” [adjective] without saying that that person is “evil” [noun]). Regardless of whether or not we capitalize those two letters, U.S. foreign policy either is or is not imperialistic in some measure.
Next thing you know Michael J. and company will be complaining that we need to send more “aid” to the people because of the instability and drug lords overrunning the government.
Will they? Isn’t this already what the U.S. government does in some countries? I fail to see how this is relevant.
Michael J. is a pseudo-intellectual who likes to incite like little brat kid in 3rd grade.
If I “incited” something in you, the problem is not mine but yours. My post is hardly controversial to genuine human beings whose eyes are open to reality.
The definition of the words empire and imperial are very simple.
On the contrary, they are not. There is quite a lot of debate about what the words mean, especially due to historical change. So much debate, in fact, that countless neoconservatives (maybe some of your heroes, even) have openly admitted that the u.s. fits the definition of “empire,” and that this is a good thing. I actually would not say simply that the united states “is” the empire of today. Empire includes the united states but it is a reality much bigger than any one nation-state. I would distinguish between imperialism and empire, in a similar way that Hardt and Negri do.
He thinks its cute to stretch definitions for the sake of “argument”
Surely my insistence that there is something imperialistic about the united states is not the first you have heard of this idea? Surely it’s not a matter of “pseudo-intellectual Iafrate” getting his definitions mucked up?
Next thing you know Michael J. and company will be complaining that we need to send more “aid” to the people because of the instability and drug lords overrunning the government.
Anyone who knows anything about u.s. involvement in Latin America knows that the former has hardly been a stabilizing force in the region. Go back to sleep.
Like many lists of this nature saying we have 700 bases is a tad not true.
jh, I get the figure from Chalmers Johnson who gets his figure from the Department of Defense, a figure dated Sept. 2001.
Michael I am looking at DOD Asset list dated 2003. I understand where these figures come from but it also needs to be seen that such things as the Hommertshausen Girl Scout Camp are included when are
Here is the 2003 pfd file that examines this 704 in detail. OF course quite a few these bases have closed especially in Germany and I think our Air Force Asset closed down in Iceland (over huge local oppostion) which I think was a mistake
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf
Chris,
I would also add as to the issue of EMpire of Imperalism that of course this list cannot be seen in Isolation as only the UNited States acting.
THis list also includes out contributution and responsibilities to such things as NATO that has a ton of soverign States
The South Pacific bases cannot be seen totally outside of our obligations that came out of Seato and our interaction with the Soverign countries such as New Zealand and Australia.
I wonder what adjective applies to this type of behaviour?
Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources.
During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:
HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.
Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.
Sorry, The above is a quote, from the Think Progress blog….
I encourage anyone who thinks my use of terms like “imperial” to describe the behavior of the United States is a “hyperbole” to read the National Security Strategy of the United States, followed by the documents of the Project for a New American Century.
Michael, it’s times like these that the radicality of Jesus Christ and Christianity are brought into high relief. We are in exile among worldly powers, even among those that, superficially, appear to be the most virtuous. Once upon a time, our fellow Christians did not surrender so easily.
Poli, I concur regarding the Pax Romana, but as I argued in another thread (hence the “again” in my first comment), empires in the historical sense (including Rome & Britain) maintained political rule over the peoples they conquered, and we do not. That, to me, is an essential element of what an empire is, and we are not that.
Now, do we seek hegemony? Of course. Are we a “hyperpower”? Perhaps. Do we seek influence? Yes. Is our culture globally-pervasive? In many ways, good & bad. I dispute none of this. But I don’t think it’s helpful to use a term that carries a good deal of baggage when it doesn’t obtain in essential ways.
I like the way that the liberals whether they are catholic or Protestant like to believe that they have all the answers. They won’t be happy until we have a leftist goverment in Washington. The UNITED STATES has done more good in the world since WW1 than any other country. The problem with liberals is that they can’t see beyond their nose.
But I don’t think it’s helpful to use a term that carries a good deal of baggage when it doesn’t obtain in essential ways.
Okay, what you are saying now makes sense to me. The semantical issue looms, certainly.
Chris –
1) Empires exist within history. No two empires are alike. Historical change will mean that empires will look very different throughout time. Of course U.S. imperialism is very different than the Roman empire. But I am amazed that you can admit that the united states “seeks hegemony” and yet oppose the use of terms like “empire” and “imperialism.”
2) Political domination is indeed one very important aspect of empire, but there are others: economic, cultural, sexual, etc. That contemporary forms of imperialism have radically evolved in terms of political domination only takes into account one aspect of imperialism. Then again, the point of focusing on the U.S.’s network of bases as a physical, directly political aspect of U.S. empire is to suggest that, at least from the viewpoint of occupied peoples, perhaps things have not changed as much as we like to think. The 700+ bases do represent a form of direct political-military domination to the non-elites of those countries.
Parsing out whether the US is properly called an empire or imperial or not is a distraction in itself. How does the semantic preference actually change the thing in question? Whether it turns out that it is or is not an empire or imperialistic, nothing changes the reality of its unique place in the world. Finding that “place” and explaining our intuitions on its value is what seems to be truly important, especially if it offers us any insight into how we, as citizens, should go about living our lives in it and the world it uniquely inhabits. The rest just sounds like sophist bloggery, which, of course, is fun too. So maybe it makes us happy and therein we find the true value of it…
Henry:
1. “I like the way that the liberals whether they are catholic or Protestant like to believe that they have all the answers.”
If its true, then I certainly don’t.
2. “They won’t be happy until we have a leftist goverment in Washington. ”
Assuming that all “liberals” are leftist, right?
3. “The UNITED STATES has done more good in the world since WW1 than any other country.”
What do you mean by good? And do those goods outweigh, in some way, the bad? Historically you are offering a very naive interpretation of post 1917 history. (now lets not get into a good vs bad fight here. I won’t name all the bad stuff I can think of and you don’t need to name all of the good. As a reader of this blog, I am assuming the best and expect you to answer the breoader question.)
4. “The problem with liberals is that they can’t see beyond their nose.”
This is a big problen indeed. But it problem for most persons, assuming they have noses and/or the limits on the scope of their perception. Saying this like like saying the problem with liberals is that they poop. Its nothing exclusive to anyone, really, except sick people with tubes in their tummys and such…
Being a refugee from a ‘developing country’, U.S. imperialism has, to some extent, affected me personally. But, Chris is absolutely right, using loaded terms that shut off conversation doesn’t do much good.
More importantly, the reality is that the world is a nasty place, and the U.S. isn’t particularly worse that anyone else. As others have pointed out, many (actually, nearly all) countries that have significant U.S. military installations want them there. And it’s not only the elites. Plenty of democratic European and East Asian countries have U.S. bases. It’s a foreign policy hedge instrument that smaller countries in particular use for protection. In East Asia, countries clamour for U.S. and Indian influence as counter against China, and so on and on…
In Latin America, things are a bit different – it’s more unipolar, for now, so many governments prefer to keep a healthy distance from the U.S. For now…
It’s a utopian ideal to wish for an isolationist U.S. But that would only be any good if the other imperialists and potential imperialists kept to themselves! That most certainly won’t happen.
Just a small example. The U.S. was a Saddam Hussein benefactor. But who was his best friend? Who supplied him his nastiest weapons? The French and Germans, whose foreign policy, if you ask me, is slightly more amoral than that of the U.S. The U.S. is at least mitigated by its more open democracy and strong immigrant population which exerts political influence.
“On the contrary, they are not. There is quite a lot of debate about what the words mean, especially due to historical change. ”
Interesting… You freely use the words that seemingly no one knows the meaning of…
Interesting… You freely use the words that seemingly no one knows the meaning of…
Absolutely. I assume a particular definition of the debated term. So do you. “Church” for example. Go back to sleep.
Local populace agreed to the Manta base, and US AID, until the current puppet Correa, of Venezuela´s dicator Chávez, bought his election.
Chávez, who was caught red-handed financing the Narc-Terrorist FARC in Colombia (with a bombed base en Ecuador, no less), is close to Iran´s Al-Qaeda. Want it or not, we all live the globalization at lightning speed.
Local populace agreed to the Manta base…
I wasn’t aware that they put it to a vote.
“I wasn’t aware that they put it to a vote.”
Line of the day. Empires always have their Herods. We call ours Maliki.
“I wasn’t aware that they put it to a vote.”
why exactly is it out of the question that they agreed to the base being there, when they’re asking/telling the U.S. to leave? The U.S. is so big and bad that we forced them to take the base, but lack the fortitude to force staying there?
Make some sense, man.
Tim, obviously Ecuador’s leaders agreed to the base. A country’s leadership is distinct from “the populace.” And “the populace” is hardly monolithic itself.
Make some sense, man.
Michael J. – Like usual, you don’t get it. The man himself said:
“The Ecuadorian people do not want foreign troops on our soil, and the government has to follow the mandate of its people.”
Sounds like the people have no say, huh? Which is it going to be Michael J.?
Tim – The country’s leadership has finally come around and listened to the people. Previously, they clearly did not.
They did no need to vote on the Manta base accord, made LEGALLY under democratic institutions.
Not democratic, in this case, is the current Correa’s confiscation af adverse tv-media, main-obssesive task of all dictatorships, or the FARC having hundreds secuestered.
No voting necessary because it was done democratically??
Uhhhhh… Let’s just ponder that for a moment…
It’s simple Michael J. – Govt. elected by the people should do what the people want. If they don’t, the get voted out. Since you don’t get that, no wonder you have such trouble with issues in the U.S.
That is, of course, unless it is the typical latin american tinpot dictatorship.
Since you don’t capitalize United States, I guess I won’t capitalize “cathaholic” (and yes, I was baptised and confirmed cathaholic).
TeutonicTim:
Sadly, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia are near the tinpot adjective, and even Argentina “sold” $ 5 billion in “bonuses” to Venezuela: all quietly stealing undernourished people.
The blatant robberies in those bought democracies, but in fact slightly disguised dictatorships, are now following Putin and China examples, ALL DOING MASSIVE BUSINESS with the USA.
Sometimes the host country just loves to roll over and say “Yes! More!” Here in Airstrip One (sometimes also known as the United Kingdom) we even expelled several thousands of our Her Majesty’s subjects from the Chagos Archipelago in the heart of the Indian Ocean in the 1960′s so we could give the islands to the US for a massive military base now at the heart of power-projection into Central Asia and the Middle East. After a few decades living in the slums of Mauritius the Chagossians have recently had a little success in the courts in achieving some recognition of their theoretical right to return home, although neither governemtn is particularly interested in making this happen. Until these recent court cases the whole business was as taboo over here as meaningful discussion about Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn’t rejoice too much about the closure of Manta. Word is the plan is to move to Colombia, right next to the Venezuelan border. Surprise, Surprise.
Another problem with the 700 number. Just a quick glance at the PDF provided above shows that there are two Naval “bases” in Spain reported. One is Naval Station Rota and the other is Naval Hospital Rota. For those of you who know this place, the Hospital is on Naval Station Rota. So unless this is a base on a base it really is just one base.
One other problem with that however. Rota is a Spanish and not a U.S base. The U.S. pays to use space on the Spanish base but the Spanish retain control of the base. Can’t even fly the U.S flag there except on the 4th of July per Spanish requirements. Can’t broadcast U.S radio and T.V. either per the Spanish govt.
Doesn’t quite sound like imperialism.
Doesn’t quite sound like imperialism.
But Michael J. said it was!
Does it really matter whether we are discussing 700 or 500? Either way it’s too many! Stop avoiding the question!