Ninety-Five
Years to Go
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
DIGG THIS
"Make
it a hundred"
~ John McCain
Although U.S.
troops have been in Iraq for five years now, we have only just begun.
We can expect the great grandchildren of the current U.S. soldiers
in Iraq to be there as well – if John McCain has his way. This assumes,
of course, that these soldiers make it back to the United States
breathing and in one piece so that they can have children.
Speaking at
a January town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Senator McCain was
asked about President Bush’s comment about the United States staying
in Iraq for fifty years. His reply
to "Make it a hundred," although it was harshly criticized,
did not keep him from winning primaries and becoming the Republican
presidential nominee. After all, said McCain, "We’ve been in
Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That
would be fine with me."
The senator
is not the only one to make a statement like that. Someone at National
Review said last year: "Ladies and gentlemen: Our Problems
are here, there, and everywhere. They will last our lifetime. You
have heard of the Thirty Years’ War. This is ours – if not our Hundred
Years’ War."
McCain did
go on to condition the U.S. occupation on "as long as Americans
are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." But
when asked about his statement on "Face the Nation," the
man who would be president remarked
that "Americans aren’t concerned" about troops in
Iraq for the next 10,000 years. He also told
a reporter "that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for ‘a thousand
years’ or ‘a million years,’ as far as he was concerned."
Now he
says that he "will never set a date for withdrawal."
It should come
as no surprise that the United States will have troops in Iraq for
many years to come. After all, there are still 57,080 U.S. soldiers
stationed in Germany, 9,855 U.S. soldiers stationed in Italy, 32,803
U.S. soldiers stationed in Japan, and 27,014 U.S. soldiers stationed
in Korea. But even where the United States did not fight a war,
there are large numbers of U.S. troops to be found. There are 1,286
U.S. soldiers stationed in Spain and 9,825 soldiers stationed in
the United Kingdom.
It should also
come as no surprise that the United States has troops in Iraq in
the first place. We would probably have U.S. forces there regardless
of whether we went to war. You see, there are U.S. soldiers stationed
in about 70 percent of the world’s countries. The Defense Department
freely and publicly acknowledges this. In fact, the DOD issues a
quarterly report, the "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths
by Regional Area and by Country," that provides this information.
The latest
report is dated September 30, 2007. Previous
reports can be seen here.
To recap on
the extent of U.S. troop presence around the globe, I first reported
on this in an article published on March 16, 2004, titled "The
U.S. Global Empire." There I documented that the U.S. had
troops in 135 countries, plus 14 territories controlled by the United
States or some other country. I then showed on October 4, 2004,
in "Guarding
the Empire," that the U.S. empire had increased to 150
different regions of the world. The third time I reported on the
extent of the empire, December 5, 2005, in "Today
Iraq, Tomorrow the World," that number had grown to 155.
The last time I updated the status of the U.S. global empire, in
"Update
on the Empire," I revealed that U.S. soldiers were stationed
in 159 regions of the world: 144 countries and 15 territories.
Not much has
changed since then. The United States has withdrawn its small contingent
of military personnel from the British territories of Gibraltar
and St. Helena, but now has four sailors stationed in the British
territory of Bermuda. New countries with U.S. troops are Belarus,
Croatia, and Tajikistan. There is one country that lost U.S. troops
– Fiji.
Although the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands doesn’t exit anymore, the
DOD has been reporting the presence of American troops there for
years. This Trust Territory included what are now the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Republic of Palau. The DOD
now reports U.S. troop presence in what was this Trust Territory
differently. Since the DOD used to just report the total number
of U.S. troops stationed in the entire region, I was counting this
as four territories with U.S. troops. The Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
and Palau are technically independent countries, but are associated
with the United States under a Compact of Free Association. The
United States provides financial aid to these sovereign regions,
including many U.S. domestic programs, in exchange for allowing
the United States to provide for their defense; that is, allow the
United States to build bases, station troops, and otherwise use
the islands for "defense-related" purposes. The DOD now
just reports that there are seventeen Army personnel stationed in
the Marshall Islands. This would be for the U.S. Army’s Ronald Reagan
Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site.
So, according
to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths"
report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries
and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that
the United States has ever had troops in. These numbers are not
the result of Marine embassy guards stationed at U.S. embassies,
as I showed in "Guarding
the Empire." To avoid giving a complete list, I refer the
reader to the original list of 135 countries I gave in "The
U.S. Global Empire." From this list should be subtracted
Fiji and North Korea, and to this list should be added Angola, Armenia,
Belarus, Croatia, Gabon, Guyana, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Rwanda,
Slovakia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. True, U.S.
troop presence in some countries and territories is quite small.
But what are we doing with 403 soldiers in Honduras, 140 soldiers
in Australia, and 126 soldiers in Greenland?
John McCain
insists that the issue in Iraq is "not American presence; it’s
American casualties." Most Americans would probably agree since
there is hardly a sound of protest over the U.S. troops that are
still in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea after fifty or sixty years.
The U.S. global empire of troops and bases has been around for so
long that it is generally accepted by most Americans. I explained
a few years ago in "What’s
Wrong with the U.S. Global Empire?" exactly what is wrong
a foreign policy of empire: it’s not right, it’s unnatural, it’s
very expensive, it’s against the principles of the Founding Fathers,
it fosters undesirable activity, it increases hatred of Americans,
it perverts the purpose of the military, it increases the size and
scope of the government, it makes countries dependent on the presence
of the U.S. military, and finally, because the United States is
not the world’s policeman.
What would
Americans think if Russia or China built bases in the United States
and stationed thousands of troops on our soil? They would be outraged,
regardless of whether any U.S. citizens were harmed. In fact, most
Americans would be incensed if Russian, China, or any other country
sent just a handful of troops to the United States – even though
the United States does the same thing to scores of other countries.
Would it be okay if all of the 147 countries that the United States
has troops in sent a contingent of their troops to our country as
long as it didn’t result in any American casualties? Why not? Why
the double standard? What gives the United States the right to garrison
the planet with bases, station troops wherever it wants, police
the world, and intervene in the affairs of other countries? Does
might make right? Even McCain recently
remarked that "our great power does not mean we can do
whatever we want whenever we want."
U.S.
foreign policy is not only aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and
meddling, it is extremely arrogant. It is based on the myth of American
exceptionalism; that is, the idea that the United States is the
indispensable nation, that its government is morally and politically
superior to all other governments, that its motives are always benevolent
and paternalistic, and that the nations of the world should always
conform to its dictates.
Avoiding another
ninety-five years in Iraq is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is
an arrogant, interventionist U.S. foreign policy that is the real
problem – a problem that a McCain, a Clinton, or an Obama administration
will simply perpetuate. Jefferson’s foreign policy of peace, commerce,
honest friendship, and no entangling alliances is needed now more
than ever.
April
7, 2008
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly
expanded edition of Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit
his website.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|