Militarization of daily life

In looking back on my initial list of how my daily life is militarized, I realize that I did not have much to say about the topic. The only things I could think of was how regimented my daily life is, and how this reminded me of being in the army and how regimented their lives are. At the beginning of the semester, I was not aware of how my life is militarized. Even though I am not in the army nor do I support the current war, I am still militarized. I am currently doing a project for another class on women in advertising and the advertising industry. The thing that surprised me most in my research for this was how unaware we are about how advertising effects us. We see advertising everywhere, from large billboard ads to signs in windows to websites we commonly surf (cough facebook). In this same way, we are exposed to advertisements for the military on a daily basis but do not even know it. If we go to the movies, we see a video to join the army before the movie trailers, and then even one of the movie trailers could be for a war film. It is not necessarily that the Army is everywhere, and this is not even necessary, so long as they have their advertisements everywhere. The thing that I find almost scary about advertising and especially advertising for the military is that it is an unconscious awareness and processing of the images we see. Even if I notice that I am looking at an advertisement for the army, because of the short amount of time spent looking at it, this is stored in the back of my mind where I am no longer conscious of it. In this same way, it seems a lot of people are unaware of how the army's advertisement has effected them. I know many people who consider themselves politically liberal and anti-war but enjoy playing Call of Duty or watching a war film. After this class and after researching more on the advertising industry and how advertisements work, I feel like I can be aware when I see something that is targeted for recruitment and make sure to ignore it, but that is only until the army thinks of a new way to advertise. Right now they have clothes, stores, video games, the Internet, television shows, paper ads, movies and in some cases, educational institutions to advertise through. What's next?

Response to Sanger Article

To me, comparing the US's presence in Iraq to Korea is just another one of the Bush administration's excuses to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In his article, Sanger references Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general who states: "If we can make this [Iraq] like Korea, then we have been successful". He also says that this analogy does not fit Iraq, so although the Korea model may seem like a positive model for the US an the US's military actions, it does not apply to the current situation in Iraq. By comparing the invasion of Iraq to a 'success story' like Korea, of course the current invasion will sound positive. However, Sanger also tells us that "Historical analogy has been a problem for this administration since the start of the Iraq war in 2003...even then, historians and analysts were warning against such comparasions, arguing that those were two cohesive societies that were exhausted by years of war and bore little resemblance to the fractured Iraqi society and its potential for internal violence". By comparing the Iraq war to historical sucesses of the US, the administration puts a positive spin on the current situation and also gives a false representation of the reasons and goals of invading Iraq. According to Sanger, President Bush refuses to quit, stating, "We'll succeed unless we quit". Again, this claim seems like an easy way for the administration to insist that we stay in Iraq, lest we fail at our goal. The impression that I get from the Sanger article is that the Bush administration will say just about anything and make historical and political connections where there are none to justify staying in Iraq.

Sex Among Allies reading

The part of Moon's reading that I found most troubling (though there were many parts that were upsetting ) was on pages 8-9 when she discusses the reasoning behind the Korean prostitutes being ignored and alienated from Korean culture. The reasons she discusses are political; she says that Korea does not want to acknowledge these women because doing so would remind them of the war and that these women are "living testaments of Korea's geographical and political division into North and South and of the South's military insecurity and consequent dependence on the United States" (8). It is really sad that these women are used so much for political and war-time purposes: first as prostitutes to American soldiers and then again because Korea views them not as humans, but as proof of their dependence on the US. She goes on to discuss how South Korea felt that it was necessary to have their women prostitute themselves to US soldiers to keep US soldiers in Korea; these women were sacrificed for 'national security': "Such humiliation is a price paid by the 'little brother' in the alliance for protection by the 'big brother' (9). I know that politically there needs to be clear alliances between countries if one country is fighting for or at another country, but to use people, especially people not involved in the politics of militarization, is really terrible, and the way South Korea exploited its women to US soldiers was unnecessary. To exploit their women and then alienate these women because they are an embarrassment to South Korea is hypocritical and even more insulting to these exploited women.

Navy Support Facility about Diego Garcia website

"The mission of the U.S. Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia is “To provide logistic support to operational forces forward deployed to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf AORs in support of national policy objectives.” NAVSUPPFAC Diego Garcia occupies a critical part on the “tip of the spear” for U.S. military forces by supporting a multitude of unique and challenging mission requirements. Our motto and mission focus is “ONE ISLAND, ONE TEAM, ONE MISSION.”

I find it really ironic that even as the US invades other countries and uses other people's land as military bases, they still use their basic recruitment slogan of "An Army of One". The slogan "ONE ISLAND, ONE TEAM, ONE MISSION.” has essentially the same message, and communicates the same idea of a group or team mentality within the US Military. I would assume that when the US Army takes over a part of a country and forces the residents of the area to either vacate or to significantly decrease their standard of living, that the US Army would try to detach themselves from this and hide what they are doing. Instead, they flaunt it by encouraging other people to take on their slogans and messages and rally behind the US Army. At first when I read these websites and the readings on Okinawa, I was angered at the US Army for what they were doing to the residents of Okinawa and Diego Garcia. But the fact that they pretend not to be aware of any negative consequences, and even worse, expect residents to support them, is disgusting. How can the US Army be so arrogant as to think that when they come in to Okinawa and Diego Garcia and ruin people's way of living, that these people should be thankful to the US Army and show their support? these residents are not part of our Army, and are not part of the "One Team" of the US Army. It is really sickening to see how the military even incorporates the island itself into their slogan: "One Island". The islands that are taken over by the US Military are not volunteering to be part of the US's expansion of military bases, so to include them in the US's slogan and suggest that they are part of the US's mission is even more insulting to the residents of the islands.

Okinawa reading/ general thoughts on political apathy

As I read the reading about America's military presence in Okinawa, I was continually angered at the negative consequences America's military has had on Okinawa. In thinking about this, I know that Okinawa is only one example of an area that has been taken over by American military forces, and that there are many other places that this is also happening. As informative as it was to read this, I wish that more would be written about other areas this is happening to. It seems that when something terrible world-wide occurs, we only focus on one area, using that area as a representation of what is happening world-wide and we forget that it is happening world-wide. Everyone recently has been eager to help Darfur, but at the same time forgetting that these things happen elsewhere as well, and focusing on the most infamous case doesn't make anything any better elsewhere.

On a somewhat related note, but more focused on the upcoming election, I've been seeing a lot of commercials lately encouraging people to make sure to vote on Tuesday. The majority of these commercials have celebrities in them, encouraging people to vote. Are we really in such an apathetic state that the only way people are encouraged to vote is by having someone famous tell them to do it? Or is it that we probably would vote but having a celebrity tell us to do it makes it even more appealing? Either way, it seems the state of apathy and ignorance is at an all-time high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtHwWReGU0

Comment to Abby's post on the Klare reading

**I couldn't find the "post a comment" button on Abby's blog, so I'll do it here.**

I also found the final paragraph of the Klare article one of the most interesting, especially considering his previous paragraph and his proposal for developing alternative energy sources. I do like how clear he makes it in his final paragraph how significant this upcoming election is regarding the issue of alternative energy sources, but I think the proposal/ recommendation he gives in the previous paragraph is a little too easy and not likely to really happen. He proposes that since the US and China together have the largest hold on the world's possession of oil, the US should cooperate with Beijing to develop alternative energy sources and more efficient transportation systems. It is very unlikely, however, that the 2 countries who are currently in a struggle to see who has more oil will put their differences aside to try to achieve an alternative plan to oil. Klare predicts that the US and China will "be locked in a dangerous struggle for dwindling supplies" (7). If (when) this is true, these countries will be even less inclined to give up their possession of oil, for fear that this will allow the other country a monopoly on oil. In this kind of situation, there is no way to make both the US and China agree to try to look for alternative sources together instead of using what they have now; Klare's proposal is overly optimistic and would not work.

Sandars reading

As I read the Sandars piece, I was initially surprised that as far back as post-WW2, America was setting itself up as the police of the world: "One commentator has suggested that 'the United States expanded its military presence to the point where it assumed, almost inadvertently and without notice, a role that has been described as Policeman of the World'" (6). I have heard this term applied to America more recently, and specifically referring to the war in Iraq, so I was initially surprised to hear it applied to America just after WW2, or at any other time besides recently. It does not surprise me though, and considering this, I understand more clearly America's intentions in Iraq and throughout the world as the world's police. Sandars argues that even though America took over the British Empire's role as the major world empire, America was not an empire. Sandars claims that an empire "By any definition...must involve the rule of one nation by another without regard to the wishes of the subject peoples and the transfer of sovereignty to the imperial power" (12). Since, according to Sandars, America did not subjugate other nations to American rule, it cannot be compared to the British empire or considered an empire itself. I would not necessarily agree with that, because the assumption of a nation that it needs to fix another country, especially by imposing its own views on them, is inherently subjugating the other country and condescending them to a 'lesser' importance. For America to assume that because it is more powerful, it is somehow better than another country uses the same logic that empires use when subjugating other countries.