The Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa might occasionally grab a headline thanks to sustained and vigorous anti-base protests, and US military bases in Guam might briefly make news due to public opposition to “Valiant Shield” war exercises that have taken place on the US colony during the pandemic. But, overwhelmingly, foreign bases simply are not discussed.
They are immutable, unremarkable facts, rarely considered even during elections that repeatedly invokes concepts like “democracy” and “endless war” and, thanks to a raging pandemic and climate crisis, raises existential questions about what United States is and should be.
The people living in the countries and US colonies impacted by these bases — the workers who build their plumbing systems, latrines, and labor in the sex trades that often spring up around them, the residents subjected to environmental toxins and war exercises — simply do not exist.
These military bases hold the key to understanding why the United States has consistently been in some state of war or military invasion for nearly every year of its existence as a country.
US military bases around the world, from Diego Garcia to Djibouti, are nuts and bolts in the war machine itself. Military bases provide the logistical, supply, and combat support that has allowed the United States to turn the whole world into its battlefield. They make conflict more likely, and then more wars lead to more military bases, in a vicious cycle of expansion and empire. Put another way, “bases frequently beget wars, which can beget more bases, which can beget more wars, and so on.”
While the idea that the global expansion of military bases corresponds with the rise of US empire may seem obvious, it is both consequence and cause. The way global military positions spread — which are always sold to the public as defensive — are by their very nature, offensive and become their own, self-fulfilling ecosystems of conquest.
Just as the induced demand principle shows, building more lanes on highways actually increases traffic, United States of War makes the argument that military bases themselves incentivize and perpetuate military aggression, coups, and meddling.
The trajectory toward empire started with white settler expansion within the United States. In 1785, the US Army initiated what “would become a century-long continent-wide fort-construction program. These forts were used to launch violent invasions of Native American lands, to protect white settler towns and cities, and to force Native Americans further and further away from the East Coast.
They were also used to expand the fur trade, which, in turn, encouraged other settlers to keep moving west, with some forts functioning in part as trading posts. The famed expedition of Lewis and Clark was a military mission to collect geographic data that would be used for more “fort construction, natural resource exploitation and westward colonization by settlers.”
While the United States was expanding its frontier, its Navy was also pursuing fort construction overseas, from North Africa’s Barbary Coast to Chile, often for the purpose of securing trade advantages. In the thirty years following the war of 1812 — primarily a war of US expansion — settlers pushed westward within the United States, building infrastructure as they went: roads, trails, and more than sixty major forts west of the Mississippi River by the 1850s. After the United States went to war with Mexico, army bases were constructed in the annexed territory. Forts in Wyoming protected wagon trails, allowing settlers to expand through the western United States.
The violent conquest and massacre of Native Americans did not stop during the Civil War, and it escalated from 1865 to 1898, when the US Army fought no fewer than 943 distinct engagements against Native peoples, ranging from skirmishes to full-scale battles in twelve separate campaigns. White supremacist policies were particularly pronounced in California, but took place across the West. After 1876, when President Ulysses S. Grant turned over Native Americans to the War Department, Fort Leavenworth was transformed into a prisoner of war camp for the Nimi’ipuu tribe.
Over almost 115 consecutive years of US wars against indigenous nations, US military forts played a consistent role in protecting white settler pillaging and conquest.
The War of 1898 was the start of a new form of overseas empire which saw the country expanded across the continent with the help of US Army forts and near-continuous war. In some cases, it’s possible to draw a direct line between expansion within the United States and conquest abroad.
US Army waged brutal battles against the Kiowa, Comanche, Sioux, Nez Perce, and Apache tribes, then ordered cavalry to massacre as many as three hundred Lakota Sioux in 1890, and then violently put down the Pullman, Illinois railroad workers strike in 1894.
A bloody counterinsurgency war in the Philippines was aimed at defeating its independence movement. Similar continuity between domestic and global repression can be found today as counterinsurgency tactics and military weapons and equipment are used by US police departments.
Organized labor, immigrants, recently freed slaves and indigenous peoples at home and abroad were all subdued by the same military and police forces making way for white settlement and capital expansion.
After seizing Spanish colonies during the 1898 war, the US began to pursue a new form of imperialism that was less dependent on the creation of new formal colonies and more dependent on informal, less overtly violent — but violent nonetheless — political and economic tools backed by military might, including bases abroad. The US built up the military presence in the Philippines to seventy thousand troops, using these forces to help put down China’s Boxer rebellion, and used its military might to intervene ruthlessly in Panama.
World War II saw the dramatic expansion of military bases, an era commencing in 1940, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a deal with Prime Minister Winston Churchill to trade naval destroyers for ninety-nine-year leases in eight British colonies, all located in the Western Hemisphere. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the US temporarily shrank military personnel spending, and returned roughly half its foreign bases.
Yet the basic global infrastructure of bases remained entrenched and a permanent war system was established. During the post–World War II era of decolonization, the US used its military base network and economic influence, buttressed by new institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to protect its preeminence.
During the Cold War, overseas base expansion became central to the goals of containment and forward positioning, premised on the idea that global bases allow quick response to threats and rapid interventions and deployments in crises. While giving the illusion of increased safety, these bases actually made foreign wars more likely because they made it easier to wage such wars. In turn, conflict increased construction of US bases.
The Korean War, which killed between three and four million people, prompted a 40 percent increase in the number of US bases abroad, and increasing concern about maintaining bases in the Pacific Ocean. Bases also spread across Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.
CIA stations expanded alongside military bases, and clandestine meddling and supporting coups became a preferred tool of US Empire. When the US waged brutal war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, it was assisted by hundreds of bases in Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, and Guam.
The fate of the roughly one thousand Chagossians (descendants of Indian indentured workers and enslaved Africans) from Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, spotlights the remarkable cruelty the US during this period of strategic island approach, whereby the US established control over small, colonial islands.
After making a secret agreement with Britain in 1966 to purchase basing rights, the US and UK governments expelled its residents between 1967 to 1973, leaving them trapped on Mauritius and Seychelles, without jobs or homes, many of their possessions lost to them forever.
During some phases of the expulsion, residents were forced onto cargo ships, their dogs killed. By 1973, the US was using this base to support Israel in its 1973 war with Arab nations. To this day,” Vine notes, Chagossians and many others among the displaced are struggling to return home, to win some justice and recompense for what they have suffered.”
The United States used bases from Diego Garcia to Oman to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and, once there, established more bases, and took over former Soviet ones. Likewise, bases from Kuwait to Jordan to Bahrain to Diego Garcia were critical for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where the US immediately began building bases and installations post-invasion.
While the Bush-Cheney administration closed some bases in Europe, overall spending on bases reached record highs during their time in office. The war with ISIS has seen troops return to Iraq, and the acquisition of bases, even after the Iraqi parliament in 2011 rejected a deal to keep fifty-eight bases in the country.
Since September 11, 2001, the US has also expanded its presence in Africa, building “lily pads” across the continent — smaller profile, somewhat secretive installations, suggesting a frog jumping from lily pad to lily pad toward its prey. US bases have been central to waging the 2011 NATO war in Libya, drone strikes in Yemen, military intervention in Somalia and Cameroon. The military has been conducting a variety of operations regularly in at least 49 African countries.
Meanwhile, base spending has played a key role in the steady uptick of overall military spending. In addition to the direct harm they do through enabling war, bases are associated with incredible fraud and waste, and base contractors renowned for their significant political contributions. This political force, and self-contained logic of sustenance and expansion, is the key to understanding how the Military Industrial Complex can be like Frankenstein’s monster, taking on a life of its own thanks to the spending it commands.
The War on Terror ethos, in which the whole world is considered a US battlefield and the US grants itself broad latitude to wage preemptive war, has come to define US foreign policy. George W. Bush talked about the importance of having a military ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world to the Middle East, Africa, and Muslim areas of Asia.
Today, the war on ISIS — responsible for significant civilian deaths — continues, so does brinkmanship with Iran, hedging against China, brutal war in Afghanistan, and US support for the war on Yemen, which has unleashed a profound humanitarian crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment