Transarming Without to Rebuild Within

Transarmament was a term coined by Gene Sharp to describe a way in which European countries, during the height of the Cold War, could drastically reduce arms and destructive weapons while promoting a civilian based defense and deterrence for national security purposes. Of course the circumstances are different in 2010 and in the case of the United States, but the principle behind transarmament is interesting when searching for alternatives to failed policy. Sharp’s alternative is one of many choices that is possible, but somehow unimaginable to U.S. policymakers.

I am not going to detail the shifty policies that have tragically plagued our forces. Those policies are sadly a victim of a grand United States strategy that has not been fundamentally altered since the Cold War.

At best, this lack of transformation to meet the security risk and the security reality may be attributed to a lack of imagination on the part of an old, rigid system, hardened against change, oblivious to the realities of the 21st century. Or is the old, rigid system the problem, not a lack of imagination? The same system that allowed for the creation of the largest military-industrial establishment on the planet. The same industry that receives taxpayer subsidies, makes billions of dollars by selling weapons around the world, then shifts some of those profits towards political contributions back home on behalf of “defense contractors”, a veiled name for the armaments industry.

There are many other hypotheses that could explain the sucking sound that started when the conflicts began in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Vietnam, and Korea, and…………

My feeling is the imagination was there, it was used, and it was used to create a system that gets lower/middle class kids killed, while enriching the CEO’s of Xe, Lockheed, Dyncorps, Boeing, etc, etc. Repetitive no-bid contracts, extraordinary extensions to budget limits and deadlines, immunity from prosecution, and political appointments are clear indications of actions that have the potential to cause damage to national security instead of improving it.

The security risks faced by the U.S. are a combination of U.S. policy abroad and the real threat faced by terrorism. Neither one of those facts should be understated.

A real, comprehensive, independent, possibly external (U.N. ?), review of U.S. strategic posture is desperately needed to overhaul and streamline our force structure. In particular, and more importantly in my opinion, with a focus on transforming U.S. foreign policy. Not that I want an outside entity such as the U.N. to intrude in domestic affairs, but I see no serious initiative that is being propsed to seriously alter the mission and structural composition of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. military posture.

Professor Paul Viotti will be leading a budget simulation next week geared towards U.S. national security policy that will shed light on some of the monetary issues that have paralyzed a system that is arguably broken.

If one were only to look at history, it becomes clear the nations, states, empires, groups, and governments that engage in expansionist and imperialist actions have ultimately failed. Americans tend not to associate with the Romans, or Greeks, or Japanese, etc. But the British. Now that is close. After all, America was founded by Englishmen. Why haven’t our leaders realized that the British Empire was a disaster? They knew it in 1776, but we haven’t a clue in 2010.  The model used by the U.S. foreign policy establishment is uncannily similar to the British model in many regards. Overseas bases, manipulation of markets, punishing trade caveats, and other disastrous effects like that of which Chalmers Johnson termed “blowback”.

Look at the situation objectively, British corporations like the East India Company were floated by public funds while the economy back home fell apart. The CEO’s got rich while the public suffered the economic consequences of an empire that spent like a deathbed patient with a black card. Does this sound familiar?

My fellow students, I simply ask that we all look at this connection between activities pursued overseas in the name of the United States, and the effects they have domestically. Who benefits? Who hurts? Who gets rich? Who loses money? Who dies? Who stays alive?

Comments are surely welcome.

Aaron Ferreira

Advertisement