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.

Response to Gates reading

In the two opening paragraphs of this article, Defense Secretary Gates is quoted as saying, "We cannot kill or capture our way to victory...", and he argues that military action should only be taken after political or economic efforts have been taken. This idea somewhat surprises and confuses me, because especially in the current war in Iraq, military action has been presented, or at least I have seen it as, political and economical itself. Separating military action and political or economic action seems like an idealized scenario, but one that would be nearly impossible to achieve and certainly not what we are doing now. Every war inevitably involves economics or politics, so to try to separate military action from economics and politics is impossible; if there were not economic or political problems, we would not need military forces. The very fact that the US Military is involved means that there are economic and political issues that could not be addressed otherwise (theoretically). Gates warns that we should not use military forces to "undermine extremism", but again 'extremism' is a political term itself, and the current war in Iraq is based on fundamental political and ideological differences, so to try to separate military action and the politics behind it seems like a sneaky way for a government to hide its motives. I also wonder what kind of economic or political efforts Gates would recommend using in lieu of military action, especially considering how fast the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Response to "The Pentagon Invades Your Life"

In many of my high school politics classes, we had discussions on how and where we buy things, and how we should be more conscious of where we buy from. Popular clothing stores like The Gap (same company as Old Navy, Banana Republic and Piperline) have been known to employ child laborers and paying them little more than slave's wages. When we buy from these stores, we help fund a corporation whose ethics we may disagree with. For a while in high school, I did try to remain very aware of where I bought from, and if I knew a corporation treated its employees poorly, or had child laborers, I would try not to buy from that store. This becomes difficult, however, when corporations obviously do not advertise that they have child laborers or that they pay less than minimum wages. Although I would like to remain aware of which corporations are ethical and which ones are not, it is very difficult to actually do research and find out for every store I may want to go to. As bad as it is to say, in a case like this, ignorance is bliss.

Turse's article "The Pentagon Invades Your Life" looked at this same issue, not from the perspective of how the corporations are run, but which corporations are linked to the military and profiting from Department of Defense money. Especially in today's society and economy, where there are about three major corporations that collectively own every corporation, it would be difficult to find out which corporations are linked to the military, and even more difficult to try to avoid shopping at or funding these corporations. Remaining conscious of where your money is going and then where that money goes is difficult, but when I am given the information, like I was when I read "The Pentagon Invades Your Life", it is harder to ignore the fact that my money may be funding companies and businesses that I do not support.

Response to "Corporate Warriors"

Because I am very unfamiliar with the army and military policies, I did not really know how to react to this article. I can't decide whether outsourcing or privatizing the military is a good thing or a bad thing or neither. The only issue I have with privatizing the military relates back to our discussion of military service linked with citizenship. If people feel that they are best able to display their citizenship and country pride by joining the military, how do these outsourced companies fit in? If the military becomes just like any other commodity, with division of labor, outsourcing, and privatization, does this somehow cheapen the work and sense of citizenship of those who join the military? At the end of "Corporate Warriors", Singer discusses how the trend of privatizing the military will lessen the state's hold over the military as it becomes part of the private sector: "By removing absolute control from government, however and privatizing it to the market, the state's hold over violence is broken. With the growth of the global military services industry, just as it has been in other international areas such as trade and finance, the state's role in the security sphere has now become deprivileged" (18). It seems that if the state is not involved in its security and military affairs, it defeats the purpose of having a military defending the state. If the military is sponsored and funded by private firms and not the state itself, how can they accurately represent and fight for the state? It seems very strange to outsource something like the military, because the military is created specifically to defend and represent the state, so privatizing it seems like it defeats the purpose and contradicts the point of military defense. As Singer claims bluntly, "It is outsourcing and privatization of a twenty-first-century variety, and it changes many of the old rules of international politics and warfare" (9).