On U.S. Military Primacy

    The United States holds a special place in world politics, that of the strongest global power -  economically, politically, and militarily.  This position, however, is not revered by the rest of the world, but resented; not lauded, but despised.  It is time for the United States to relinquish her stranglehold upon the world.  I urge this not only in view of the antagonized world, but also as a matter of national self-interest.
    To oversimplify history, the 18th century was the birth of the idea of the United States, while the 19th and 20th were the failed actualizations thereof.  Americans gloriously cast off the tyranny of one empire, then immediately donned the mantel of empire themselves.  In the 19th century, rich white men exploited natives, robbing them of life and land, Africans, removing them from their homeland in slavery, and women, by refusing them enfranchisement and education.  This was a systematic process designed to retain the status quo: wealthy Caucasians perched upon the backs of the repressed lower classes.  After fully colonizing the mainland, the American empire set its sights abroad.  The frontier was proclaimed "closed."  In other words, the natives had been dispossessed of their land, and there was nobody remaining on the mainland to steal land from.
    The 20th century was a procession of ever-increasing imperial dominance, all under the guise of democracy and freedom.  The Spanish-American War of 1898 was the precursor to this sort of imperial conquest.  Much of the scholarship around the war has been done on the Yellow Journalism of the time that may have whipped up the war fever.  This journalism vilified the Spanish for their atrocities against the Cuban revolutionaries, and painted the American soldiers as heroic protectors of liberty against a repressive regime.  This formula of journalism and vilification would remain mostly unchanged until today, only with ever greater perfections of the exact recipe.  American imperialism did not slow after this first sortie, but rather accelerated.  The United States took interest in the Philippines, opposing popular revolt there, attempted to install a puppet government in Cuba, stole Hawaii from the natives, and claimed sole possession of the Western Hemisphere in the Monroe Doctrine.  This is not to mention the clandestine actions taken in Central and South America by the CIA and other secret government arms.  These actions were all taken either to create business opportunities or to protect those already illegally and immorally fashioned.  And all of this was done under the auspices of liberty and democracy.
    Then there was WWI.  America, citing isolationism as the political paradigm, while maintaining a Western Hemisphere empire, claimed neutrality in the war.  This ostensible neutrality is undermined by the American dollars flowing to both sides of the conflict in Europe.  Quite simply, we were hedging our bets.  Loaning out huge sums of money to both Germany and Britain seemed like the best way to ensure profit.  It was only when Britain, where the preponderance of American money way, was poised to lose, that the United States intervened in the war.  American armed forces entered the conflict, using the sinking of the Lusitania as a pretext, to protect their business interests.  We entered the war a small nation and emerged a global power.
    Turning to WWII, there was a clear moral action to be taken.  There can be no denial that Hitler and the Nazis were immoral, aggressive and evil.  Thus, the United States had a moral obligation to come to the defense of the attacked nations.  This, however, is not how it happened.  Instead, we practically begged the Japanese to attack us, giving a pretext for further United States domination of East and South-East Asia.  Japan made it clear to both the United States and the international community that they were being squeezed industrially and militarily by Western Colonial powers.  They felt the pressure of ABCD: Americans, British, Chinese and Dutch economic interests.  Instead of placating the Japanese's concerns, we vigorously pursued further colonization of the Philippines in particular and of the entire Pacific in general.  We ignored warnings from the Japanese, much as we ignored German warnings that the Lusitania would be sunk if it came into German waters, then acted shocked when the warnings were actualized.  Then, of course, the United States war machine was reinstituted to bring us out of the Great Depression.
    The Cold War will be remembered by posterity as one of the darkest events in American history.  Much as how terrorism provides pretext for war and infringement of civil liberties today, communism was vilified in all apparitions, real of manufactured.  I only need to mention McCarthyism to show the end result of the route we are on again today.  However, as appalling as McCarthyism was from a civil liberties perspective, it pales in comparison to the havoc we wrecked abroad.  Wars of attrition in Vietnam and Korea were waged with no conceivable end gain.  We came in bearing the banner of democracy, yet instituted wars and regime change against the will of the people.  How is that democracy?  Instituted military action against the will of a people is the most fundamentally undemocratic action a nation can take, and the United States used the pretext of Communism to take this action many times in the Cold war.  War can only be justified if the moral benefits outweigh the costs.  There is no possible argument that can support Cold War military actions on moral grounds.  Similarly, clandestine actions in South and Central America, creating America-friendly regimes and puppet governments, were disgusting and wrong.  They were not enacted to defend Capitalism as a bringer of wealth nor the free market as a method for freedom and self-determination, but rather to protect specific American corporate interests.  We murdered thousands, wasted American lives and resources, overthrew sovereign nations, and forever blighted our reputation abroad, all in the aim of defending corporate profits.  Colonialism per se had been replaced by corporationism.
    The question, then, is "why?" Why would a nation undertake, so often and so avidly, such immoral actions?  It is all in the name of profit.  Not even profit for many, but profit for few.  A massive invested capital interest in was in WWI, and the profits reaped led to the Roaring Twenties.  The Roaring Twenties were not, however, a time of great prosperity for all Americans.  It was a time of fabulous profits and speculating on Wall Street, which did little else than sow the seeds of its own demise when the stock market inevitably crashed.  The Great Depression that ensued left many Americans unemployed, and putting men in uniform and women in factories provided a perfect employment solution.  If poor men died in combat for a rich man's war, then that was actually good for the system, as there would be less expense in veteran's benefits and one fewer person seeking employment upon coming home.  Once this gigantic war machine was set in motion, it needed ever-increasing conflicts to sustain itself.  With the gradual ceding of sovereign powers back to Axis powers after WWII, American soldiers were no longer explicitly needed abroad.  This would mean a massive homecoming of workers and a vast reduction of arms and munitions production.  Thus, the economy would suffer doubly.  The solution, find an enemy, and do so quickly.
    The solution was ingenious in that it provided an enemy that was an idea, not a place or people.  Not only was this enemy a military threat, it was an economic, ideological, theological and secretive threat.  The secrecy of the Kremlin fueled the fears over what exactly the Russians were doing and how far their influence really spread.  The logic of the times was to always assume the absolute worst scenario, regardless of how improbable that may be.  The constant klaxon call was that Communism was threatening to come to America.  Thus, the free market was threatened at a paradigmatic level.  So it was in the interest of the United States economy to defeat Communism as an idea as well as a foreign force.  It was also profitable to produce munitions for what was labeled a moral struggle, and it was better to keep young men away from home, in the military, where they could learn discipline and unquestioning obedience of superiors.
    Regardless, the Cold War is over, and logically the United States war machine should have shut down.  However, American military spending has continued to increase even in the absence of any superpower enemy.  What has now been substituted as the face of the enemy are terrorists: people so foreign to the bible-thumping, good-ole American perspective that they are easily vilified.  This is a beautiful model as far as the military-industrial complex is concerned.  This is not a war of equally matched superpowers clashing on the battlefield; it is a ridiculous struggle of hopelessly out-matched guerilla warriors, who are defending what is held most sacred to them.  They cannot win, but neither can we - and therein is the crux of the plan.  It is the perfect model of endless military consumption.  Bombs explode in the desert, bullets pepper the landscape, tanks and military vehicles endlessly traverse the desert, and every action increases the profit margin of the military industrial complex.
    This is a never-ending sustainable conflict.  The enemy can always fade into the shadows providing the military with ever more need to develop new scouting and tracking devices, to launch more surveillance missions, and above all to hold a constant military presence worldwide.  Military researchers and developers are happy, industrial producers are happy, fat cat politicians with defense industry-funded campaigns are happy, but hundreds of people lose their lives. This is all done in the name of spreading democracy and in the sacred American national security.
    The plan is flawless from the perspective of the military industrial complex.  However, from the point of view of the American people, the so-called "War on Terror" is the most detrimental action, whether analyzed morally, economically or politically.  As stated before, a war is only justified if the moral benefits outweigh the moral consequences.  Consider for example, how many Iraqi and Afghani citizens have been killed in order to protect American "national security."  Why is our national security supreme to their sovereignty?  We have invaded two sovereign nations preemptively, illegally, without world support, and with little regard toward collateral damage.  The message sent to the world, and the one received by the Middle East, is one of hypocrisy and arrogance.
    Economically this war is bankrupting the government in order to sustain the military industrial complex.  If military spending were cut to a fraction of its current turgid state, education, police, health care, and welfare could all easily be paid for.  There would be no need for a partisan discussion of a welfare state or a descent into socialism, because the services would be covered by the surplus.  It is only in times where money is scarce that such humanitarian projects are objected to.
    Politically the "War on Terror" has destroyed America's reputation worldwide.  Not only in the Middle East, but all across the world, nations are calling for an end to war.  They call the wars illegal, immoral, and wrong.  In today's ever-increasing globalization, we cannot afford the censorship of our historical allies, or the preclusion of emerging allies, based on our marriage to a faulty military system and ill-advised wars.  Demilitarization and an immediate end to warfare are the only solutions to save face on the global scope.
    Ironically, even from a national security perspective, our actions abroad are counterproductive.  Recent polls have shown a lack of knowledge in the young Afghan population about the attacks on 9/11.  This means that these people have no knowledge of even the pretext used as to why their homes are being destroyed.  The perception from the region, rightfully so, is that the United States is a repressive foreign power exercising its might in the region in pursuit of self-interest.  This broad-based belief, coupled with civilian casualties and constant military presence will of course breed unrest.  There need be no mastermind behind the scenes pulling the strings of the Middle East to brew unrest, because the seeds of unrest are constantly being sown by the occupying power.  A surge or further military action represents America's lack of confidence in the people to govern themselves as well as poses a security risk to the civilians.  If a foreign standing army was in the United States, regardless of how well-intentioned they would claim to be, American people would revolt, and rightfully so.
    There are currently over 700 active American military bases worldwide.  This includes tens of bases in Japan, where war has been finished for well over half a century.  While the United States maintains such a large military base abroad, there are zero foreign military bases on American soil.  Why?  Because a foreign military base on American soil would be an affront to American sovereignty. This shows the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of the American military.
    The solution is simple: demilitarization.  This would reduce expenditures, release the stranglehold the military-industrial complex has had over our nation, and save face internationally.  The only way we can lead arms reductions talks is by enacting arms reductions ourselves.  Other nations have laid the conditions that they will disarm only if the United States does so first.  So the solution is simple: disarm.  Be a leader through action, not through empty promises.  The road to peace is never through war.  Let us cast down our military might, and welcome a more secure and peaceful age.
    It is difficult for other nations to accede to American demands when the United States does so as if from on high and rarely takes the same actions herself.  The route to smoother international relations, and hence a greater, not lesser, geopolitical role, is to renounce supremacy and end the hypocrisy.  America will remain the most powerful and richest nation on earth, but will not do so despite the international community, rather, with the support thereof.  America will not need to defend her interests through military actions, but rather through strengthened cooperation among her allies.  I call for an immediate end to war and disbanding of military bases abroad, as well as a substantial arms reduction.  The protection of American interests by the rifle is self-destructive and immoral.  Protect the nation morally and lawfully at the negotiation table, not on a fabricated battlefield.