US BASES

Chalmers Johnson has been on the case of off shore US bases. He notes that world wide they are now almost 800 in number. How might they be necessary? Why is there not more opposition to them?

They are extravagantly expensive to operate and onCe established there appears to be no initiative or wish to withdraw from them. It is almost as if enemies, or at least contingencies, have to be invented to justify them, but I suppose that is simply the logic of wider military-industrial complex. Clearly once the US did withdraw, for example from the air base and associated facilities at Frankfurt there is no way could be retrieved despite the fact the cold war is now over. I suppose they might be analogous to the naval bases the Britain had during the Empire, and the bases represent landing rights, when not electronic spying stations.

Now it seems that cost squeeze may well increase – who knows (does anybody care?) what that does to the US budgetary bottom line. Chalmers Johnson, at Tom Dispatch, observes:

On June 23rd, we learned that Kyrgyzstan, the former Central Asian Soviet Republic which, back in February 2009, announced that it was going to kick the U.S. military out of Manas Air Base (used since 2001 as a staging area for the Afghan War), has been persuaded to let us stay. But here’s the catch: In return for doing us that favor, the annual rent Washington pays for use of the base will more than triple from $17.4 million to $60 million, with millions more to go into promised improvements in airport facilities and other financial sweeteners. All this because the Obama administration, having committed itself to a widening war in the region, is convinced it needs this base to store and trans-ship supplies to Afghanistan.

I suspect this development will not go unnoticed in other countries where Americans are also unpopular occupiers. For example, the Ecuadorians have told us to leave Manta Air Base by this November. Of course, they have their pride to consider, not to speak of the fact that they don’t like American soldiers mucking about in Colombia and Peru. Nonetheless, they could probably use a spot more money.

Now it is not the case, as has been alleged, that there was never opposition to the presence of the bases. As Chalmers Johnson knows well the base at Okinawa has been a source of angst for ever. At the same time, one suspects that Japan is not susceptible to the “economic hitmen” and the “jackals”, as for example Honduras might be. Nor is it the case that the bases have not attracted popular protest, as is currently occurring in Italy.

Empires are after all political systems, subject to “forcings” and “feedback” mechanisms, and potentially systemic breakdowns. It is ironic to say the least that one of the principle creditor nations, China, is at the same time, strategic objective of the Empire. Then again perhaps by becoming overly involved in the Islamic world, the Empire has averted its focus from Latin America, offering that potentially rich continent (and peninsula) the possibility of social and political progress.

I suppose it ought not be surprising that there is no political opposition to overseas bases in the US, since there is no political opposition in that system. The greater the cost of the delusion, the stronger the belief in the reality it suggests but cannot deliver. No, I think the US Empire will last for a thousand years, at least. Like the mark of Cain, it is a permanent feature of mankind.

Advertisements