Baseless Empire

According to an article in Global Research by Professor Jules Dufour, the United States has a vast worldwide network of military bases. In the year 2007 there were 737 foreign-based U.S. military installations scattered around the globe. It should be noted that number does not include super, ultra, highly classified secret bases that are undoubtedly located near potential adversaries and notorious hot spots. The site claimed that there were 255,065 military personnel deployed in off shore posts in 2007. The identified bases contain 845,441 buildings and cover more than 30 million acres. These bases, these deployments and their requisite equipment inventories are not cheap. The critical question is: are these bases absolutely necessary for the defense of our nation? Does our national interest justify these costs? Do these bases, if not vital, provide a strategic or social advantage for our country? And…if these bases are important for local or regional purposes, why not have the host country pay the costs associated with our protecting them? It would be the military version of “rent-a-cop.”

In my view, many of these bases may be superfluous, but I am not a military or logistics expert. On the other hand, if the host nations were to absorb the costs for deployment, it could result in a win-win for all parties. Our budgetary shortfalls would receive some relief from the payments, and our presence in those many nations would not be considered so “imperial.” Our military function would be similar to one of an independent contractor for the host. Chain of command and mission issues might arise, though, and could compromise the financial relationship. As an example, assume we had a garrison in the Dominican Republic and they were paying its costs, but our leaders believed that those troops were needed in Haiti on a short-term mission for whatever reason. How would the costs be allocated? What input would the Dominican Republic military and political leadership have in the decision for deployment? What if there were disagreements between our leaders and the host nation? These questions (and more) illustrate that the rent a troop model may not be workable.

The bottom line for our nation is: do we absolutely need all these bases and their associated native resentments to assure our national security? It seems reasonable that given our advanced technology and the superiority of our personnel and equipment, we can maintain an effective response and deterrence with fewer foreign bases. We will save valuable resources…financial, people and equipment and perhaps generate some goodwill. Frankly, the good will issue is a nonentity for me because there are too many other extraneous factors that determine our standing in the world. Closing several or many bases around the planet may have little impact on our global image. The Constitution requires the federal government to protect and defend the nation…despite what other nations, groups or cells may think of us. The Constitution does NOT require an international network of bases and troops to project an image of power. The Constitution does NOT require several hundred garrisons around the world to provide command opportunities for hundreds of professional officers.

We can reduce our global footprint, maintain our national security, and perhaps, engender some tiny element of goodwill by pursuing an intelligent and fiscally responsible policy for locating and supporting military bases. We need not become an isolationist “fortress America” to follow a reasonable policy. Dismantling some of our militaristic empire-building superstructure need not damage our safety. Our budgetary priorities are so distorted that we must begin with military excesses as we whittle the entitlement monster down to non-existence. The time has come to slaughter all the sacred cows of our bloated, ineffective, inefficient and unconstitutional federal government.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Dire Education

If you want to succeed, you must go to college. Since the end of World War II, that has been considered conventional wisdom in our society. We are constantly bombarded with facts and figures supporting the idea that without a college diploma, a person will not be capable of living a financially satisfying life. So, one would assume if all that were true, a college education would be as important as any staple such as bread or milk. Higher education, as a necessity, has been infused into our marrow, melded into our subconscious, and branded into our epidermis. In other words, the absolute requirement for one to matriculate from an institution of higher learning is sheer propaganda. Oh certainly, it may be helpful. Four or more years of learning to do one’s laundry, managing one’s pocket money, and attempting to avoid a drunk and disorderly citation are valuable learning experiences that can pay dividends for a lifetime.

When I was teaching, my favorite students were those who in mid-life decided to pursue higher education. There were a number of reasons that they had not done so earlier such as an unplanned pregnancy, flunking out, military service, tired of school and bevy of other personal circumstances. They truly appreciated the classroom. Because of their life experience, they would challenge anything I said that tripped their “b.s.” alarms. Their work was timely and well done. The adult students would engage in vigorous debate as we examined issues that impacted mass media. They were older, wiser and more mature than their fellow students, and ……….they paid their own bills. They wanted a 3 credit-hour course to contain 3-credit hours or more of content and value. The bottom line is that the value of a formal education is directly related to the effort of the student. Personally, I have more than seven (7) years of college and university education, but my greatest learning was acquired on my own by reading and studying outside my academic field.

You might ask why I am discussing this subject when we have budget showdown underway and military conflicts in a number of areas around the globe. The cost of higher education slides into our current environment because we are focused on the costs for government, healthcare, energy and food. Over the past two decades college costs have been at the top of escalating outlays. In other words, the cost for higher education has increased much faster than for many other sectors of the economy. Why? Why should students and their parents pay so much for something that may be of questionable intrinsic value? Why should parents and students pay so dearly for four or more years of steady leftist indoctrination from instructors and professors who are refugees from the turmoil of the 1960’s?

Because of the upward spiral of college costs, many students face years of student loan debt repayment after graduation. In a small way this is a good thing. They learn rather quickly how oppressive debt can be, and maybe can translate their personal situation into a basic understanding of how deadly debt for the country can be if it becomes too unmanageably huge. In addition after the graduates have been out of school for a few years, they’ll begin to understand what real learning is about. They’ll use the tools they developed in college to equip themselves for real life. Self discipline is something that many college students develop in their forays through the halls of academe. It is extremely difficult to sit through the political and philosophical garbage spewed by many college teachers without suffering from a massive gag reflex.

Neal McCluskey wrote in a February, 2008, article that the primary accelerant for the rising costs of college was the myriad government programs for loans and grants to allow our children to advance their educations. All the programs have done is to provide a huge pot of money for schools to tap and has allowed them to escape true fiscal responsibility. In defense of the colleges and universities of America, they really need those funds in order to provide a higher level of pay for their U.S.-hating, aging hippie faculty. Think of it as a welfare program because a large number of those faculty members could not survive in the real world. They must have the nest of the academy to nourish them and protect them because they cannot fly on their own.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/