Intentions in Afghanistan the Philippines: Benevolent gone awry

Are we really just "spreading democracy" and attempting to be a beacon of light for the rest of the Middle East to model themselves from? Or are we fighting an unjustifiable war that is only being fought for the interests of United States domestic politicians with ties to foreign relations? According to neo-liberals such as George Bush and Bill Clinton, we are in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan being specific examples; "in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations." This passage was an article from a law passed in the Clinton administration entitled, "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," These examples listed above are perfect nations for neo-liberals such as Clinton and G.W. Bush to attempt to instill the western, capitalist myth of a "free-market" where any nation can compete. What ends up happening is we head over to weaker nations with "benevolent intentions" but end up becoming involved in murder accusations of our troops. This is exactly the case that is happening in Afghanistan right now with five U.S. Army troops being accused of the murders of twelve Afghan civilians.

Well I thought we were supposedly over in Afghanistan to stabilize their government and set up a western-style system of capitalism. The problem is, the Shari ya (spelling), or the Islamic law, is completely against our western ideological system. Our diplomats and politicians are concerned with the lack of control in the Middle East by our war machine, and their concerns are valid. The Muslims who fundamentally hate the west will fight until their death for our presence to leave their region of the world. The wars in Afghanistan, and the continuing war in Iraq (the war in Iraq is not over, do not be fulled by false reports, troops are still being deployed in Iraq on a fairly constant basis) are completely unorganized and are full of troops whom do not know the correct way to conduct this new style of fighting. When we have a grunt accusing his Sergeant of telling the squadron to "wax this guy" referring to a regular Afghan citizen, then we as a nation are not spreading the "beacon of light" we once professed to posses as a group of citizens. The neo-liberals might tell you that we are going into oppressed nations, to "lift them in accordance with the rest of the world" with benevolent intentions, but as I have read many historians argue, mixing democracy, abolishing tyranny, spreading ideals, all with benevolent intentions, does not work out the way it was originally intended. The classic example of a failed occupation to "civilize and uplift" a particular nation was the United States occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. When the natives would not assimilate to our way of life, on the set time schedule we planned for them, we decided we needed to force the change to occur. Those benevolent intentions quickly turned into visions of potentially huge investment by controlling the Philippines. We did not think twice about what we were doing to the natives; the popular thought at the time was how could the United States establish itself on a global scale via a Pacific point of view.

If there really is a threat in the Middle East, then I have no problem supporting the military if she is fighting for justifiable reasons. But to support an army that is getting a "thrill out of the killing of innocent Afghan civilians" is tough for me to conjure up the strength for. But apparently, being the sole hegemonic power means you as a nation must "search in order to find monsters to destroy." Are these "monsters" legitimate threats, or rather scapegoats for the United States to use to portray its dominance as the sole superpower in the world? The debate is real and alive, waiting to be pondered and critiqued by aspiring historians such as the students in this class.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-soldier-describes-thrill-kill-innocent-civilians-afghanistan/story?id=11732681

the link posted above is to the story on the five U.S. Army soldiers charged with pre-meditated murder.

-JT Liverman

Virginia Beach will live on without Oceana

This weekend I attended the 37th annual Neptune Festival that was held in Virginia Beach. While enjoying the activities I decided to conduct my own field study. Having been born and raised in Virginia Beach, I have attended every single Neptune Festival since its inseption in 1973. I have seen this small local event turn into one of the largest activities of its kind.

The beginning of this study started with surveying twelve different hotels/ motels along Atlantic Avenue. All of the facilities were sold out for the weekend. Three of the facilities claimed that they were booked full all the way into November. One hotel, the Hilton, said they were booked full all the way into December. This is good news for Virginia Beach. Many people believe that the ocenfront is basically closed from October to March. That might have been true ten years ago; but, in 2010 Virginia Beach is just as vibrant as any other comparable city along the East Coast. The new oceanfront convention center is prooving to be a resounding success. More and more groups are naming Virginia Beach as their annual convention destination. Rates at motels and hotels are at rock-bottom during the winter months. This is attracting many visitors to come to our city during this down period.

The second part of my study involved observation and conversations with some of our out-of-town visitors. While driving around the oceanfront and looking for a parking spot I noticed that there were a large amount of license plates registered to states other than our own. Cars from New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina were represented. I even saw one car from Ontario and two from Quebec. While walking through parking lots I noticed the same trend. It seemed that one out of three license plates were from out-of-state. This is remarkable when you consider that tourist season is over. I talked with a few visitors and they all said that they came to Virginia Beach because of the short travel distance and the low motel rates at this time of year. They also said that marketing in their area was very strong for Virginia Beach and that they felt that this area was family friendly with a low crime rate. None of the people I talked to were related to the military. As a matter of fact, I noticed that there were not that many military personel present in the crowd.

In 2009 Virginia Beach had over 2.5 million visitors that spent 890 million dollars. In return, this created more than 15,000 jobs. In addition to the tourist industry, Virginia Beach has a strong agricultural heritage that contributes to the economic vitality of this region. Manufacturing in the area is also continuing to thrive. There are many companies such as, Stihl, that have made Virginia Beach their home. This kind of business is not related to the military and is an indication of our areas economic vitality.

How could Virginia Beach survive without Oceana Naval Air Station? This question has been asked by many. My answer is yes, our areas strong economic base outside the military is very strong and continuing to grow. If the massive acreage of land that Oceana occupies were to become available to our tax assesors. The winfall would be tremendous. There are many other uses for that land that I feel will better utilize the available resources in our area. Examples that can be used are turning the airfield into a Fedex/ DHL terminal, or building an industrial park or amusment park. The real estate tax that the city would gain would be astonomical. Currently, the city does not receive this benefit from the current residents. In addition, one has to look at the residents from the base. They typically receive benefits that none military personel do not receive. For example, tax free shopping and free medical benefits are typical for many military families. This economic activity does not benefit the city and in actuallity causes harm to the native residents of our area. I will admit that housing will suffer as a result of the loss of Oceana. But, when you look at the big picture, housing is intruding on green areas that can be used for agriculture. There is an influx of un-needed housing in Virginia Beach. I feel that existing housing has met our needs and construction of new housing should be limited.

In conclusion, I feel that the future shines bright for Virginia Beach. Tourism is on the rise, manufacturing has shown a strong increase and agriculture is and always will be a force of strong economic input/ output. Yes, I believe that Virginia Beach can survive without Oceana and would continue to thrive without the presence of Oceana Naval Air Station.

Dominion from Sea to Sea

I thought Bruce Cummings book was fantastic. It was well written and it kept me completely engrossed. His thoughts in relation to american military and economic growth and expansion was enlightening. His thoughts concerning american westward expansion and global influence across the Pacific Ocean was very unique and well conceived. Although, his theories are very sound and reasonable I tend to disagree with him.

Although, I agree that the Pacific Ocean and East Asia have a very strong impact on United States global policy, I think that american emphasis should center around solidifying our age-old connection with our European allies. Our ties to the "Old World" (Europe) are just too strong to overlook. The relationship between the United States and England is one of the strongest bonds that modern history has seen. We share common culture, society and values with our European allies. This type of bond should be strengthened and improved upon and I believe it is our duty to complete this goal.

I also feel that the United States should defend its interests in the Pacific and Asia; but, avoid expanding any farther than we have already. With the enlarging economic power of China, America should tread lightly in an area of growing Chinese strength. The United States, already has strong defensive establishments in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Our nation should be satisfied to defend these nations and use them as a bulwark to defend our Pacific interests and most importantly defend the west coast of the United States and protect the Panama Canal.

In conclusion, Cummings book was a fantastic read that I would recomend to anybody. Although he puts forth some sound judgements I will have to disagree with some of his theories. Particularly, when one considers the United States existing European bonds and domination of the Atlantic Ocean. Trans-atlantic trade is and always should be America's path to global success and economic stability.

Technology as an Industrial Revolution

I find the view Cumings has developed of technology as another kind of industrial revolution and driver of the American economy quite interesting.  The development was very much focused within the western states and so it is unsurprising that this would be a major part of his book.  I think that he might discount too much the role of eastern interests in financing and providing a market for the products that were produced by Microsoft, Apple and company.  However, he is clearly showing that this was a monumental shift in the American economy.  Furthermore, the growth of software giants like Microsoft and the movement overseas of the Fairchildren (companies spun off by Fairchild Semiconductor) heralded the larger transition in the American economy from one of production of durable goods (hardware) to one of services (software.)  One may loathe the monopoly of Microsoft or the cult of personality that has developed around Steve Jobs, but Apple and Microsoft are some of the largest generators of goods and services that this country exports.  I suppose the ultimate irony of this is that some of the grunt work coding for Microsoft is done overseas and for Apple all of its products composed by industrial designers to reach a near Platonic level of perfection, are produced in the People's Republic China.  It is very interesting that communist China has benefited so much from the capitalist west's desire to reduce wage and production costs but it seems less so given the insistence a century or more earlier to use imported Chinese labor to reduce costs and become more competitive.  Perhaps there really is nothing new under the sun and we have always needed cheap Chinese labor to run the country's economy. 

I am struck by the way Cumings is constantly drawn to the concept of Arcadia. I suppose that it is a most appropriate way to describe the way people have viewed the country. It always seems convieniently depopulated and yet unmarred by human impact. Yet as soon as paradise is found it is lost. Cumings does a fine job of detangeling the way in which the settlement of the west was a monolithic process and instead parses it out into it's constitiuent parts. Different people settled different parts of the country and
It has only been through the imagery of the Hollywood Western that this ideal has been created. I greatly enjoy Cumings use of cultural references to illustrate his point. For him, themexpansion ofmthemcountry wasmmoremofma
cultural phenomena than anything else. I wish he had given a more thorough treatment of the war in the Phillipines but I do enjoy his way of framing regions and his discussion of how the environment has impacted settlement and material conditions.

Cumings ch 1- 3

Dominion from Sea to Sea is a very in depth look at the American dream or belief in manifest destiny.

As I read these 3 chapters though, I am having problems piecing everything together because Cumings jumps around from different time periods so hopefully all of it makes sense (my notesJ) I keep having to change my whole thought process- not easy for me J

Cumings begins by trying to define what the “west” is and how its boarders have changed so drastically over time. The east is cultured and refined with much of the same characteristics as Europe. The west is uncivilized and wild, yet it is seen by the newcomers as a way to break free and move farther from their European roots. The west is like a never ending conquest – maybe I should say that moving west is a never ending conquest. We began on the east coast and slowly the boarders of what is east and what is west moved closer and closer to the Pacific. The Pacific was our Garden of Eden as Cumings calls it- a land without the constraints of the east- or better a land without the constraints of Europe.

Cumings compares Chicago to the Pacific coastal cities because of its rapid industrial growth. If I understand correctly, Cumings is comparing the 2 because the growth of Chicago linked more so than we had ever been to the “rest of the world” whatever that was during that time- Europe, the east and the west. The east on one side and the wide open west on the other meant that “Chicago was the epicenter of innovation” – the goods of the west had to first come through Chicago before a profit could be made. Chicago was like what the west coast held in store for us as far as being an epicenter to the rest of the world.

Chicago made the Midwest virtually untouchable when it came to industry. It tied our new country to the rest of the world and kind of gave us a beginning as far as trade and marketing go. New innovations of the meat market gave us a broader than ever future. Inventions such as the conveyer belt, slaughterhouse and refrigerator train cars promised a profitable future for those who owned land out west because they could grow corn or raise cattle and pigs for income. Cumings emphasizes the importance of the Homestead Act which allowed for the expansion of farmers and landowners throughout the unsettled west. This expansion led the way for market opportunity for the US which leads to worldly power.

Cumings illustrates just how profit driven and power hungry new Americans were then- just as they are today. The new colonial life set up a foundation for domestic trade and production through transatlantic and international economies. The quick transformation and success of the colonies demonstrates the settler’s interest in power and authority over their new lands, the people they found there and over their own destiny.

- I think the Monroe Doctrine illustrates our new countries desire for extreme supremacy and our capability as a new country- we were very forceful in what we wanted and we got it. I think threatened the old world in many ways.

Cumings vividly describes the European settler’s need for control as they quickly destroy the native American’s land and lives through urbanization of their lands, killing of the buffalo, the on sought of diseases and murder. This mode of power through the control of human lives was soon used again by slave holders. This all led to the Indians savage ways- the once peaceful tribes lived among each other, trading with each other and helping each other- after the whites came, the poor Indian tribes had nothing left and no choice but to use barbaric practices in order to survive or save what little of their culture was left- it became their tribe against the rest of the world, the world being all other surviving tribes and the whites.

As the settlers moved west, conquering all in sight- eventually they reached the Pacific- which was to the settlers a gold mine (latterly of possibilities). The pacific coast symbolized e very thing that was America or everything g that American wanted. The need for power and good old American greed push west. It was like a race to power- who would be the first to claim land or find gold. Jefferson led the way in settling the west; I think Cumings calls him an expansionist- perfect for him J The Donner party was a perfect example of greed and the American love of power. The Donner party, who was originally headed to California, following others decided not take a so called faster route through a mountain range- the reason for this was to get to the gold and land first. We all know what happened to that group high up in the Sierras.

The Texas Annexation led to the Mexican American war, both perfect examples of the American ideas of Manifest Destiny, we took the Indians land now we were taking the Mexican’s land. Again, we got what we wanted by way of force. Victory and conquest for the US forces sparks even more feelings of nationalism and Manifest Destiny now.

- I have been told before that America has always been the one to begin conflict either by stirring up problems with other countries which in turn leaves us no choice but (for the good of all) to intervene or by letting the weaker force strike first- exactly what we want- hhhmmm…. Pearl Harbor???

- As I read ch 3- it said exactly that- we have always provoked war in some way.

Hey!!! John- little John- look!! Johnny Reb did your chapter!!!