Stambuk and Smith

I didn't have the chance to read last week's articles while I was at my conference, so I'm only getting around to posting about them now. These articles were harder for me to engage with than others we've read, though I'm not entirely sure why. I guess while I have opinions on the issue, I'm not sure what to do with those opinions, I don't feel that they get me anywhere, and nothing I've read has helped me to see alternatives. It is interesting to read in more detail about the origins of basing, but it doesn't change my perspective. And I'm not surprised by it, though it is helpful to know more. Despite finding a few paragraphs that stood out for me, I don't really know what to think about military basing, and I'm not sure what viable alternatives there could be to an institution that is so large, so global, and so rooted in a history of colonialism and imperialism. Furthermore, knowing more about the military-industrial complex only seems to point to a future where even more bases exist, not fewer, and those contracted bases scare me even more that the US military bases, because the contractors are, for all intents and purposes, pretty free agents.
I guess I have a hard time with bases because I can see the argument for keeping them even if I don't agree with the reasons they were initially set up. At this point it seems that military bases are ingrained in the communities and sustain the lives of people who live there. At the same time the very existence of these bases demonstrates an arrogance that I see as detrimental not only to our diplomacy but also more generally in the sense that the existence of these bases reinforces militarism around the world as the premier method of dealing with and viewing conflict, not to mention perpetuating a legacy of imperialism and colonialism.
Unfortunately, I really don't see a way of closing these bases and still keeping the thousands, if not millions, of people employed who depend directly or indirectly on these bases. That goes for US citizens and military personnel, but also for local workers in the communities where bases exist. What would it do to the economy? Bases are little cities almost, and if the people aren't being sustained by the military, then what is the alternative? My mother grew up on bases, and she taught me to be a pacifist and is as anti-war as anyone I've met, but even she can vouch for the fact that bases are self-perpetuating, self-sustaining, and if that structure fell apart, a lot of peoples' lives could be ruined by the economic consequences.
One thing I found interesting in Stambuk's article was how drastically our foreign policy has shifted from Jefferson saying, "nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it" (16) to today's world of permanent bases, the frighteningly large MIC, and the Bush Doctrine. In terms of the question of national sovereignty, it seems less has changed. Looking at the case of Hawai'i (19) it appears that the US has ignored claims to sovereignty for years, so I guess we shouldn't have been remotely surprised about Iraq.
I didn't really know what to think about Smith's article, though it absolutely provided new information. I guess I was left really with only one question: How could the BSR "inexplicably" fail to include Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Kosovo and Iraq? What does that even mean that these locations are left out? What is the significance and what would it mean for them to be included? I just don't understand, and maybe it's just technical but I don't get what the intention is behind leaving them out - who cares if they are included? I guess the whole BSR talk is very hard for me to grasp, in fact, I felt a bit lost throughout Smith's piece. I don't really know how to compute that sort of technical data info, which is one more reason the military should be glad I'm not working for them.
I was more invested in Klare's article, but I'd like to incorporate it into talking about this week's readings, so I'll post on that for Wednesday.