0
Transform the Military Industrial Complex: Peace through Radical Inclusion
In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the United States to beware of the Military Industrial Complex. In his Farewell Speech he stated that “proud of this (world) pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment…In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist…We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together…As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” In this speech, it is clear that Eisenhower wished to avoid the militarism, imperialism in terms of the aggressive extension of authority, the economic meltdown, and imbalance of wealth and power that is characteristic of the U.S. that we know today.
Since his warning, the U.S. Military has been involved in 92 military operations across the world that is known by the public and the global network of military bases has expanded exponentially. Under the guise of security interests, we have entered other countries and created zones that are generally off limits to the countries’ residents in order to have strategic quick and easy entry and exit points while our military discloses or shares very few if any information or technologies with them.
This military occupation of other countries in some people’s eyes has become a catalyst for heightening retaliation from enemies in the past several years. In fact, Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and others have pointed out this issue of “blowback” on many occasions.
In my eyes this policy of secrecy and occupation doesn’t benefit the U.S. because it creates a layer of separation. Separation creates an idea of an “us” versus “them” rather an idea of “we.” The idea of “we” is collaborative and much more inclusive and reminds people that we are all a part of each other.
So then what kind of policy could we initiate that would possibly reverse or even out this secrecy, occupation, and separation? What about a policy of radical inclusion. One of the most incredible ideals I have embraced as a member of the Burning Man community is that we have to work in all ways, no matter how radical it may seem, to include all types of people in our communities because no one deserves to be excluded by others because they are different. Each person should have opportunities for inclusion and the decision of exclusion should be their own or based on behaviors that interrupt either large portions of people’s liberties or has a negative effect on the community as a whole.
Keeping with this thought, suppose we (The U.S.A.) were to initiate a policy that first apologized to the world and said we were wrong. Not wrong for wanting to make the world our allies but wrong about how we have gone about it. We have gone about by establishing military bases in other countries but allowing very little of the same on our native soil. It is funny that when most people think of a Russian or Japanese military base in the U.S., they cringe but they wouldn’t bat an eyebrow if they were told that we have two or three bases in those countries. Why is that? If we don’t want foreign troops on our soil, why would we believe they would want our military on theirs?
In my opinion, the only way citizens of the U.S. would be okay with this situation is if it was benefitting them through some form of collaboration. So why not encourage collaboration by inviting every country that has a U.S. military base within its borders to include one within our borders. This can easily be done by parsing off sections of current military bases and military bases that are or were scheduled for closure. By the end of Fiscal Year 2001, closure actions on 451 military bases were scheduled as a part of major Base Realignment and Closure. Had these closures and new closures been funneled into a program where other countries could have leased the land and established a U.S. military base it would have stimulated both local and national economies, reduced military spending, encouraged resource sharing and exchange across militaries, reduced the need for the amount of military personnel, and effectively show the world that our military interest is to truly establish allies.
Local and national economies would be stimulated by the fact that personnel from these military partners would flood into these bases along with the influx of their financial capital that would be spent in domestic business sectors and stimulate new markets for resources that these foreigners would seek and can’t find in the U.S.
Military spending would be reduced with the spending that would be eliminated from the operations of the portion of bases that are now succeeded to these new ally bases.
Because the bases are now physically adjacent to our own, exchange and sharing of resources will begin to occur at varying rates.
Additionally, once allies are established here and our military begins working with foreign militaries on our soil, they will be more likely to perform favors for us on their soil, which will reduce our need to send military to their soil to perform certain operations.
Clearly this type of inclusive military policy Invites the world to be our allies and will build trust among those who chose to be a part of it. It will take away the gunfight standoff that exists as a result of our secrecy and non-transparency. There is no doubt that were such an inclusive policy of this nature be initiated that not only a heightened level of transparency across militaries would occur but also a higher level of transparency would have to occur for the U.S. citizenry.
This situation would allow people of the world to see the origin of lineages of peace that would surface based on the collaboration and the transparency that is occurring. With no more secrets, this would certainly erode the need for military operations that are geared at fighting enemies and kindle the need for operations that are more peace keeping oriented.
What is more, democracy will be disseminated naturally through the friendships that are fostered through this ally building and a healthy solidarity will be created. Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating a world military but am advocating a change in purpose for military in the world that comes from breaking down the idea of “us” and “them.
So it seems in talking to others about this idea the biggest concern is whether the military would actually do the right thing and begin foster collaboration or would they take this opportunity to foster greater espionage or take secrets and use them to create do more empire building. I ask people to re-occupy their minds when I hear such rebuttals. The military, despite popular belief, is at the whim of the people albeit through congressional control. Somehow that concept has become lost in the minds of U.S. citizens and needs to be found. Any operation such as this would be controlled by the legislature as defined by the Constitution and the level of transparency would be defined by them and executed by the President as the Commander and chief, as I and many others believe it should be. Regardless of what possibilities of corruption might arise, in my opinion, the point made here is still important and that is the U.S. must move away from policies of exclusion which lead to divisiveness and mistrust and move instead toward policies of inclusion that builds comrades and stable allies for peace.
Web Map:
Visit more of BrianHewlett.com and the social world of Dr. Brian Hewlett by selecting desired pages below.
Latest Comments: