Richard James
HSTCMP485
Prof Rafael
Lesson 07 Essay - Midterm Exam
Question 4
The relationship between war and empire can be described, foundationally, as empire oftentimes depending on war to sustain itself by having adversaries to fight (adversaries who are oftentimes represented as “other”) and the spoils of war to perpetuate empire through territorial occupation and reaping of resources from new colonies. War depends on the empire to provide the resources (soldiers, training, equipment) to conduct itself. In the case of the United States, the empire is simultaneously rendered visible and invisible. By being visible through both economics, via production, and militarily, as is the case with the conquering of Native Americans and theft of their land, to the Spanish-American war, and later, through the presence of military bases throughout the world. By invisible means through political and cultural power, guaranteeing the spread of American capitalism, cultural ideals and securing American interests. With military bases throughout the world, American military dominance is portrayed, ensuring the spreading of those American cultural and capitalist ideals, along with the ethnocentrism of Americans serving abroad, and viewing themselves, along with American ideals, as superior to their local subjects. In the American military, the soldier, a hypermasculine construct, is integral in ensuring American superiority over the “other”, by being trained to be devoid of compassion and other feminine traits deemed “weak”, and unofficially allowed to satisfy their sexual appetites from prostitutes, which is largely seen by military authorities as a tool to keep male troops satisfied. Paradoxically, due to the spread of VD inside the military and the communities surrounding military installations, the prostitutes are seen as a threat to a soldier’s health and combat readiness, requiring intervention through regulation and “turning a blind eye”, thus reinforcing the relationship between the US military and the notion of prostitution, as a complex one. As is the case with the United States, all these aspects combine to ensure the empire is maintained by violence and superiority over the “other”.
“Empire possessions determined international status, shaped foreign and commercial policies, and informed metropolitan military organization”, in short, the empire benefited the denizens within the home boundaries of the empire. War, on the other hand, was “the means to extend imperial possessions to guard and pay for what imperial powers already possessed” (Killingray, 1). In the case of the United States, following its independence from Britain, thus allowing it to expand into Native American lands from the 18th century to the late 19th century, this war and genocide against the native population of America was exercised to expand its borders and build its wealth, with the only slowdown of genocide being the American Civil War. Shortly after the last of the conflicts with Native Americans, the United States’ conflict against Spain in 1898 was a means to acquire colonial possessions in Latin America, the Philippines and Guam. War brought the United States territory and resources necessary to express itself, on an international stage, as an imperial empire.
Empires weren’t necessarily dependent on war in order to exist, as was the case for “informal empires”, where control over militarily and economically weak territories in Asia, Africa and Latin America was brokered by imperial interests and local elites. As would become the case of the United States, with internal opposition to empire, or imperial policies, its rendering of empire would become similar in some characteristics to the capitalist European powers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The “visible” and “invisible” aspects of American empire rest on the pillars which represent its power in the global system, which is economic, military, political and cultural (Laxer, 65). The visible aspects being its means of production (economic) and its military conquests from its wars against Native Americans and the Spanish in 1898, but also via its subsequent placing of military bases throughout the world. The invisible aspects being the U.S.’s political power, maintained by its enormous influence in international economic bodies, and its cultural power, exerted through mass culture (films, television and music) which would oftentimes showcase White-American “exceptionalism”, while it would also demonstrate white superiority over “lesser” peoples and cultures.
The placing of military bases around the world projects the United States military presence, preventing challengers from emerging which could threaten its supremacy. The strategic placement of these bases ensures the United States can protect its access to vital raw materials, and to ensure its navy has free access to all the key passageways around the world (Laxer, 72). This military security is in place to secure the U.S.’s economic and political interests.
Within the military, working to secure the U.S.’s economic and political superiority, you have the American soldier - a hypermasculine construct, deployed to secure those interests in the name of empire by bringing war. The soldier is crucial in maintaining multiple aspects of American “exceptionalism” and racial superiority. As evidenced by racially derogatory acronyms, like “LBFM”, used by U.S. soldiers to describe female sex workers in the Philippines (Sturdevant, 326), superiority of the soldier is key to projecting superiority over military-base host countries and their resident populations. So valuable the soldier is to empire, U.S. military officials stationed in the Philippines in 1898 would institute inspection regimes to combat rampant VD among the soldiers and the local population (Kramer, 371), despite pressures from moral campaigns at home and ethical issues against prostitution. Further considerations in favor of the soldier’s value to empire, over native laws and customs, such as “the case of a drunken American soldier raping a native girl in the Philippines, and her boyfriend slitting the soldier’s throat as he slept off the booze, and the retaliatory measures from the soldier’s comrades, killing any native foolish enough to get into their sight” (Miller, 31). In addition, the soldier was valued to the extent there was a lack of military discipline for their atrocities against the native inhabitants. This all emphasizes the importance of the soldier, by the military, and agents within the government, as a necessary, and essential component in maintaining and expanding empire.
The process for creating soldiers involves “Total Control”, where the soldier recruit is subjected to multiple facets of psychological programming. The first of which is to standardize the recruit’s behavior, through drills designed to eliminate the soldier’s identity and reconstruct it as a part of a platoon, or deindividualization, with rigid rules and harsh punishments (submission). From there, it’s subjugation, where the training shifts to dangerous disorder, to ensure the soldiers are always ready, always untrusting, and always aware of their surroundings (Tietz, 56). Soldier training involves loving your comrades in your platoon as family, emphasizing masculine virtues of “rationality” and eliminating any “feminine” aspects of weakness (soft, emotions, ambivalence), combined with derogatory descriptions of women in their marching chants and other practices aimed at objectifying women, thus becoming weaponized. Finally, at the conclusion of their training, through collectivization, they’re made anew, as soldiers, part of an immortal fraternity.
To sustain the soldier, to service the needs of empire and make war, the figure of the prostitute comes into play, there to serve the needs of the soldier’s desire, boost their morale and reinforce their hypermasculinity by objectifying that which is feminine. The military institution, having a long and complicated relationship with prostitution, took on many different roles in supporting prostitution for the betterment of mental health of the soldiers. In the late 19th century, from an official role, regulating the spread of VD among the soldier and native population via inspections during the War in the Philippines, both incentivised and not (Kramer, 372), to the more tolerant and less official views on prostitution of the present day, required by the U.S. Military for the morale of its boys (Sturdevant, 317-318). However, the presence of VD in the military and, subsequently, the native populations, including the prostitutes working around the military bases, brings the definition of “enemy” upon the prostitute, as the potential for carrying VD and threatening the health of the hypermasculine soldier who purchases her sexual labor. Anything which is a risk to the soldier being able to carry out his function of war, is deemed an enemy and this narrative further underscores the problematic relationship the soldier has with what is feminine, and reinforces the required dominance over the “other”.
Richard James
HSTCMP485
Prof Rafael
Lesson 10 Essay - Final Exam
Question 5
With the United States responding with a “war on terror” post 9/11, the different dimensions of this response abroad and at home, started by the Bush administration vowing to bring Al Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, to justice for the Islamic Jihad attacks on the World Trade Center Towers. It culminated in the invasion of Afghanistan and a war against the Taliban, who were harboring and training Al Qaeda. Somehow, in the midst of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration determined Iraq was also responsible for nefarious activities, and in tandem, started planning massive military operations in Iraq. It was noted in the documentary, “Private Warriors”, the subsidiary of Halliburton, KBR, had already started building up their operations in the Middle East before the US invaded Iraq, thus preparing to provide support to any US military operations in the region. Then, President Bush, “on the grounds that Saddam Hussein’s regime was developing weapons of mass destruction” (Laxer, 102), on March 20th, 2003, formally ordered the United States invade Iraq.
Another dimension to the response at home and abroad, where the “war on terror” had begun with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States expanded its security apparatus with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and expanded the NSA to track activities of US citizens, all justified for keeping America “safe”. These new agencies, combined with secret CIA-run prisons, housed US and foreign nationals. In the case of Guantanamo Bay, housing “enemy combatants”, with an “open-ended war on terror” (Kaplan, 851), combined with Supreme Court rulings, kept them out of US courts and ensured they weren’t entitled to protections from the Geneva Conventions, further eroding due process from judicial process. In addition, the wars of occupation encouraged blowback from other countries, reinforcing this perceived need to search for more national security by adding security checkpoints at ports of entry and placing every American under suspicion. The American public, while attempting to move freely nationally and internationally, are then seen as guilty until proven innocent, further exacerbating national insecurity, at the expense of diluting democracy.
The role neo-liberalism played in the conduct of the war on terror can first be traced back to the end of the Vietnam war, when the “unpopular with the public” draft was abolished and it resulted in the US relying on an all volunteer force. Seeing drops in recruitment, and seeking to “create a military that would free Washington from worry about what the troops might think” (Englehardt, 4), the military brass sought to replace soldiers with high-tech weapons and saw the Pentagon ramping up engagements with private contracting firms who were run by former military officers. These firms, with their connections to Congress and the Pentagon, netted no-bid contracts. In the case of the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, a no-bid logistics contract was awarded to KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton (awarded because VP Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton and a major shareholder), to provide support for the military operations in the region. In addition, private security firms employed “soldiers of fortune” to manage national security details and guard logistical operations, or in the case of Halliburton, securing the massive oil reserves in Iraq and moving the oil and their personnel through the region. All highlighting examples where the US military became subjected, colonized to the rule of the market.
Another aspect to the role neo-liberalism plays in the conduct of the war on terror was highlighted by the Bush Administration’s purpose to “convince us that we are in a permanent state of war that must trump all other concerns” (Lafer, 346). This would ensure the war on terror would never be over, would further allow a creeping police state, suppress domestic dissent and label administration critics as traitors to the country. The war on terror would persist across presidential administrations, leveraging high tech weapons with the use of CIA covert drone strikes, ramping up during the Obama Administration, first “on the morning of January 23rd-the President’s third day in office” (Mayer, 2), and proceeding on a regular cadence. It’s been estimated that during the Obama administration's drone attacks, targeting Al Qaeda in Pakistan, it culminated in one bombing a week. The use of CIA drones to combat the unending war on terror further illuminates the relationship of the market, the defense contractors, with the Pentagon, where the American military apparatus, fighting a war without end, an enemy without a specific identity, could guarantee a marketplace existing in perpetuity for the consumption of high tech weapons and the employing of soldiers of fortune. The use of drone strikes also dehumanizes the cost of war, by reducing liability and accountability of the “warrior” corporations running the operations, and when the result is dead “non-combatants”, it represents additional instability by resulting in “an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased” (Mayer, 8), which leads to the sale and operation of more drones (a crucial instrument of imperial policy) creating a vicious cycle which only benefits the market.
Finally, we can think of the “war on terror” as both a failure and a success in relation to US global power and neoliberal governance because the quick military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan did not translate into long term US domination. From the perspective of the US military strategy of unilateralism, it has been seen as an abject failure. The rise of anti-imperialist sentiment from continued use of drone strikes, the use of military contractors and soldiers for hire, massive deaths of civilians and many other non-combatants, and governance which wasn’t in alignment to local religious and political ideologies, it all exacerbated the situation, and weakened the hold the US had on the region. The US attempted to remedy the precariousness of the situation, by employing a “counter-insurgency” strategy, which entailed long term commitment and nation building, requiring massive spending and deep cultural and linguistic knowledge, for which the US military was sorely lacking. It was a form of colonialism, and proved unsuccessful. In addition to the “counter-insurgency” strategy, the US employed heavy-handed “counter-terrorism” strategies, which were needlessly violent and both led to growing hostility among local and national leaders which demanded withdrawal of US troops. It culminated in enmeshing the US forces in a protracted guerilla war it could not win. On top of the complications abroad, complications at home arose, too. From years of fighting a war, which the American public largely views with indifference, but also with opposition, the war on terror lacks the political support to pursue with the fervor it had immediately following 9/11. Further complicated from the recession of 2008, the US lacked the resources to carry out the war on terror at the same level, thus making it become untenable both politically, and economically. However, the “war on terror”, from the perspective of neo-liberal empire, is seen as a great success. With the downsizing of the US military, engaging with for-hire security forces, outsourcing logistical functions, and leveraging technological weaponry in place of troops, this realized tremendous profits for the markets relying on war for sustenance. Invasions and occupations meant opportunities not only for weapons manufacturers, security firms and logistical companies, but the building of base, communication, housing and food distribution infrastructures in those occupied countries. Unfettered by US public accountability, as outlined in “Private Warriors”, these firms could realize tremendous profits at the expense of the US taxpayer, all without having to release any records which could show wrongdoing. It was also seen as a success by the oil industry, by first raising prices of oil due to scarcity from the initial conduct of war, but also resulted in new fields of exploitation through occupation. The increased wealth in oil not only showed benefits to US and European countries, but further benefited the authoritarian regimes in the Middle Eastern Gulf States, in particular, Saudi Arabia. With the significant market benefits of oil consumption to Saudi Arabia, it generated huge demand for US manufactured weapons systems for securing their repressive regimes and, thereby, generated huge profits for those same US weapons manufacturers. In turn, the oil profits would also benefit both sides of the regimes, the insurgents and the oppressors, allowing for the sale of secondary arms to the challengers to ensure conflict in the region for the foreseeable future.
In summary, the “war on terror” created a valuable business partner in the US military, ensuring huge corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex, instead of the focus on national defense. It clearly outlined how the market, under neo-liberalism, regulates the state, instead of the state regulating the market. The “war on terror” exemplifies the imperialistic aspects in play for the American Empire, and how we, as informed citizens, can resist and organize for our own purposes, resistance in the violence of the imperialistic regime by recognizing it in all its guises.