The US military base network and contemporary colonialism: Power projection, resistance and the quest for operational unilateralism (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Revolution In Military Geopolitics?
Political Geography, 2000
This paper looks into the recent discussions within the US military community of a coming or current 'revolution in military affairs' (RMA) which is said to imply fundamental changes in military geopolitical imaginations and practices (military geopolitics). In a first step, an account of the rhetorical and the conceptual part of the discourse of the RMA is conducted. In a second step, the proclaimed RMA is situated within a wider cumulative technological and organizational development in warfare after the Second World War. In a third step, special attention is given to geopolitical incongruities or contradictions apparent within the discourse of the RMA, and between the rhetorical part of the RMA and more conventional geopolitical practices and imaginations. In a conclusion, the promise of an actor-network approach in further investigations of contemporary techno-geopolitical discourses and practices is spoken for.
Repeating Islands of Resistance: Redefining Security in Militarized Landscapes
Human Geography
Social movements near American military bases have been increasingly successful at opposing the continue militarization of their home communities. Focusing on groups from Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawai'i and Okinawa -as well as the global "No Bases" network -this paper examines how social movements in presently colonized places organize their multi-scalar activism to challenge the legitimacy of militarism. While the American state views many of these places as sacrifice areas for an imperial national security, these organizations resist this banal colonialism through campaigns for a localization of sovereignty and a redefinition of security. Inspired by strategies of decentralized organization, affinity, direct action and mutual aid these 'newest social movements' are not merely petitioning the imperial state for greater access to rights through a politics of demand, but are engaged with creating secure physical and social environments through struggles for local selfdetermination, demilitarization, and environmental decontamination. Through their activism these organizations challenge not only the legitimacy of contemporary imperialism, but also the notion that the nation-state is the proper institution (and scale) to define rights, sovereignty, health and security.
H-Net, 2008
Comprising a conceptual framework, seven substantive chapters, a critical individual synthesis reflecting on the book itself and a summary conclusion, this edited book provides a set of constructive conceptual and empirical contributions to international relations, political science, and military studies. Its key argument is that national military power is too often simplistically equated with states' material and human resources, ignoring the divergent effectiveness with which states make actual use of them. In sum, and certain conceptual challenges notwithstanding, Creating Military Power provides a rather well-accomplished and differentiated analysis of the manifold sources of military power, making it a welcomed contribution to the ongoing reconceptualization of military power. With latent US ethnocentrism in some of its chapters, it is also recommendable to all those interested in the state of current US scholarship on international security studies
Military Power in Us Foreign Policy - Tradition and Challenges
TEME
When considering the military power of the United States, it is necessary to distinguish military force and military power. Military force represents an organization that is equipped and trained to use force. America is clearly the largest military power in the world, and that is a fact. However, the term military power is significantly wider than that of the military force. It also includes elements related to the threat of using force and many other activities related to the involvement of military force in contemporary international relations, including international defense cooperation, military-technical cooperation, the purchase and sale of weapons and military equipment, and more. The paper focuses on this exact segment of military power, understood as a willingness to engage the US military force outside their national territory. The aim of the paper is to describe the evolution of the United States’ strategic thought regarding military power as a foreign policy instrument b...
Making war at home in the United States: Militarization and the current crisis
2002
ABSTRACT Our job as intellectuals, this article argues, is to struggle to understand the crisis presented by terrorism in all its forms. This can center on a theoretical account of militarization and its relationship to broader social changes, from the emergence of nationstates to the course of racialization and other inequalities to the convergence of interests in military spending.
Embodying the garrison state? Everyday geographies of militarization in American society
Political Geography, 2010
This study evaluates the garrison state hypothesis , which posited that the United States and other democratic states were becoming militarized societies, dominated by military culture, values, and goals. Building on the work of various scholars who have more recently identified the militarization of U.S. policies and other actions emanating from the formal state apparatus, we have explored the everyday geographies of the nation-state, with particular emphasis upon the experiences and activities of people in local settings. Considering the contingency of how everyday geographies of the state are constituted, two towns (Hopkinsville, Kentucky and Clarksville, Tennessee) neighboring Fort Campbell, Kentucky are analyzed using interviews, participant observations, and documentary evidence to examine manifestations of militarism and ongoing processes of militarization. Despite their common adjacency to Fort Campbell, the agency of actors in Hopkinsville and Clarksville has at times resulted in different bases for resistance to, and acceptance of, militarizing processes. We conclude that the construction of a 'friendly' or democratic 'garrison state' does not emerge in a simple, top-down manner, but rather is possible only with the people and practices who constitute the everyday geographies of the state, though this process is negotiated differently in different settings due to the complex centralelocal relations occurring within them.
Militarism Unchecked: Origins and Consequences
Geopolitics, 2008
The years since the president of the United States declared a global "war on terrorism" have been punctuated with calls from a number of political geographers and geopolitical scholars, such as Colin Flint, Rachel Woodward, Derek Gregory, Stephen Graham, and Matt Sparke, for more engagement with the issues of war, peace, and militarism. This point was clearly demonstrated at the 2007 Association of American Geographers conference, which featured sessions with titles such as "Militarization and the Family" and "Geographies of Militarism". The theme of militarism has emerged in other fields as well. For instance, political scientist Chalmers Johnson examined this topic in tandem with the related themes of American imperialism and hegemony in his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Anthropologist Catherine Lutz (2001) documents the processes of militarisation in her recent work, Homefront: A Military