Comments on: The American Empire

By: Paavo Ojala

Paavo Ojala — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:36:57 +0000

A similar map about Chinese would be a lot darker.

That one looks bad, but it’s because they make a big deal about coloring medium green those countries that have 10-20 “troops”. That’s not really military presence. That means in lot of these cases just embassies and trade in military technology.

I’m surprised how little troops there actually are.

By: Mike Mechanic

Mike Mechanic — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:23:16 +0000

The Pentagon’s figures aren’t really the point, nor are they particularly accurate. The true US presence has to be ascertained from the details relative to humanitarian training missions, weapons, and funding America provides. The figures do likely include embassy guards (the Pentagon won’t say); but the 0-10 troops color is neutral on the map in order to minimize that concern. Read Herbert Docena’s piece on the Philippines; it makes clear how America can have a strong presence in a place while officially having few troops there. The Table of Contents is at http://www.motherjones.com/military

By: KBCraig

KBCraig — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:58:45 +0000

chsw wrote:
According to the Mother Jones map, the USA has 100,000 troops in Russia.

Or 72. Whatever. Close enough!

By: jwh

jwh — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:19:08 +0000

Please, list the countries with which the US DOES NOT have a security treaty or agreement which authorizes our troop presence.

That’s going to be a very short list………

By: Big_Texan

Big_Texan — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:19:02 +0000

As a military man (national guard) I have to point out that most embassies have at least a Marine Detachment, and a good deal of countries have some military trainers. I’m not sure why those would be counted, unless, *gasp* – it was to make it look like the United States was trying to control the world. I think, if you take a really close look you’ll find that the only countries that have more than 1,000 troops are Germany, Japan, and South Korea. And of course Iraq and Afganistan. I have never been to Japan or S Korea, but Germany also has heavy concentrations of French and British troops. The Germans people are divided on the question of American troops staying there, but the German Government is hell bent on keeping us there. We spend billions there and it is great for thier economy. I personally think we could and probably should close the bases, and I remember several years back there was talk of closing some of the German bases. The German gov talked to the pentagon long and hard to get them to stay. I’m less sure on S Korea gov position but, I know the people there want us to leave and we absolutely should. I think we keep about 30,000 there as a ‘trip wire’ against N. Korea (Yeah join the army see the world, be a trip wire for a fanatical, recluse kingdom) Anyway I clicked on a few of the articles listed at the website and it said that 20% of the ferdal buget was spent on the military. If you look at a % of what that is in the total economy though it’s just a drop in the bucket. US GDP is some 13 trillion dollars, so 500 billion is some 4%. That the real story of our modern military. We can project nation destroying power for 4% of what we make nationally. I guess the bottom line is that the map isn’t really indiactive of real world projections. The articles were pretty much anti-military and making the point that we spend to much on the military. I don’t think we spend enough.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:12:44 +0000

Don’t forget that we spend just over $1 trillion on our military presence in 130+ countries. That is an 11 year payoff of our national debt… That’s better than most mortgages!

Uhhmmm no. Unless you are tossing in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The entire defense appropriations for 2008 is $500 billion. I’m not even sure you’d get to $1 trillion when you include both Iraq and Afghanistan.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:53:59 +0000

The little commentary is of dubious value as well. For example, zooming in and scrolling over Chile we see, “How America disabled a democracy.” With 33 troops? Goddamn we are good! Could that be embassy security? Scroll over to Nigeria we get, “Lost of oil. Few troops.” Uhhhmmm…okay. The point please? Ghana, “A US base in Ghana is bull? Not so fast.” With 13 troops?

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:47:27 +0000

Be a little careful with the final image. The edges of the continents are given a shadow, so the difference between the previous image and the final one looks huge, but might not be that big after all.

My thinking as well. While the point Radley is making is a good one, I’m not sure about that last image. Oh, and how much of that is due to troops in embassies?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:07:45 +0000

Don’t forget that we spend just over $1 trillion on our military presence in 130+ countries. That is an 11 year payoff of our national debt… That’s better than most mortgages!

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:18:03 +0000

Les-
I guess I’m not cut out for journalism- my post is a little muddy.
I DON’T think the US military should be protecting the corporations making these risky investments. However, that’s been the case since WWI. I think the country would be much stronger with much less military presence throughout the world. Our corporations would build in safer places (here, perhaps?) and we wouldn’t be securing our financial interests with our already over-sized and too-expensive military.

By: josephdietrich

josephdietrich — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:30:23 +0000

To me, the most imperial thing about the map is that the places where we have the most troops are the places where we won or tied major wars in the last century. Victors, spoils and all that. It's not so much the fact that we have troops everywhere, so much as the fact that if we invade, we will never leave.

By: Les

Les — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:47:02 +0000

Thanks, ceanf, I see what you’re saying, but certainly, the U.S. isn’t the only military power making international trade safe and possible? I mean we all expect our government will enforce piracy laws along our coasts and in international waters, but don’t all powerful governments do this?

Marty, let me play devil’s advocate, here. A large corporation wants to expand its business into a dangerous part of the world. Are you suggesting that it’s the role of the taxpayer funded U.S. military to help that happen? Shouldn’t the corporation pay for its own protection? What part of making the world safe for U.S. corporations has anything to do with defending the borders or the Constitution of the U.S.?

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:00:55 +0000

How many corporations would build in these risky third world environments without the military protecting their investments? To me, it looks like at least part of our industrial base would’ve never left the US if our military wasn’t trying to make the world safe for US corporations to invest…

By: The_Chef

The_Chef — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:25:40 +0000

How many of those are defensive Marine detachments at US Embassies?

Methinks this map needs some serious revision.

By: chsw

chsw — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:07:54 +0000

According to the Mother Jones map, the USA has 100,000 troops in Russia. No wonder Putin’s pissed! He must be operating from this map!

chsw

By: ceanf

ceanf — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:04:44 +0000

true les, but the ships carrying your cargo would have a tough time getting there without enforcement of the US military. pirating is a huge concern in international trade, though you seldom hear about it. the US military fosters the environment that makes trade and the transportation of trade goods relatively safe. not that i necessarily support our presence in a large majority of places around the world because i think that the money could be better spent at home. just wanted to point that out.

By: Les

Les — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:51:59 +0000

The international system of trade is sponsored by the US and would not exist without enforcement by the US military.

Really? I couldn’t do business with Canada or Australia or countries in Europe without enforcement by the U.S. military. Please explain.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:42:15 +0000

I’ll say this first. We use troops far too often for humanitarian and police work instead of their designed purpose; to break stuff and kill people. Yes, the military does get stretched, not by “empire building” but by the tons of stupid little off mission tasks that they’re asked to do. However, if a referendum was required before troops could be stationed somewhere there are US cities or states where troops couldn’t be based. That argument seems to be a little bit of off the cuff populism, despite their leaders, the cost/benefit, or the consequences, if the People are uncomfortable with troops being there, then it’s a bad idea.

As was mentioned, the ability to project power and yes, force to the far corners of the globe is one of the cornerstones global trade. The incentive to invest in third world backwaters (thus enabling all the visiting with, learning about, and employing) is increased when you and the local Generalissimo know your investment and your person is protected by a military that’s nearby. There’s a reason why we jet off to Tokyo without a thought as opposed to Bogota. Libertarians tend to look foolish when they claim that the ability to protect your assets and allies abroad means that you’re building an “empire”.

By: chance

chance — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:24:11 +0000

Eh, like Tokin mentioned above, counting Marine Guards and Defense Attaches kind of skews the count. A better map would be based on mission rather than raw numbers.

By: Mal Armstrong

Mal Armstrong — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:12:13 +0000

Two things:

1. How interesting that President Thomas Jefferson authorized regime change in the states that supported the Barbary pirates without even Congress’s knowledge much less approval. There’s got to be some irony there since Jefferson seems to be one of the anti-war types’ patron saint. By the way, while a flawed in his policies on slavery, he is one of my patron saints because he generally exemplified Locke domestically and Hobbes internationally.

2. The international system of trade is sponsored by the US and would not exist without enforcement by the US military. Our sponsorship is the closest thing there is to an international rule of law. You may not like that fact, but who else is going to do it, the UN? Our presence in other nations may cause some ill will but there is a tradeoff here that you need to acknowledge.