Text Fwd: Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases

Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases
http://www.fpif.org/articles/bring_war_dollars_home_by_closing_down_bases
By Christine Ahn and Sukjong Hong
Foreign Policy in Focus
March 31, 2011

On the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. fighter planes took off to start yet another military action -- this time, in Libya. A recent Gallup poll found that only 47 percent of Americans approved of military action in Libya, the lowest level of support for military intervention in 40 years. At the same time, U.S. President Barack Obama has sent Congress a budget that includes $1.2 trillion dollars for military and security expenditures. Clearly, Americans are weary of war, especially during an economic crisis that has threatened jobs, health plans, and pensions most families need to survive.

The hopeful news is that a grassroots movement of ordinary people across U.S. towns and cities has launched the New Priorities campaign, uniting under the demand to “bring the troops and war dollars home” by cutting defense spending instead of benefits, jobs, and basic government services. Worldwide actions are also being planned for the Global Day of Action on Military Spending on April 12th to shine a light on egregious amounts of military spending by the world’s governments. Central to these efforts must include demands to shut the 1,000-plus U.S. military bases in over 46 countries.

Bases are the most visible structures of the U.S. drive to maintain global military hegemony. Yet for most Americans, bases remain out of sight and outside the national discourse on war. Many don’t know about the enormous footprint of U.S. military installations around the world and how they undermine the lives and aspirations of the people who live directly in their shadow. Ending U.S. wars is essential, but closing down foreign bases is even more critical to dismantling U.S. militarism and global hegemony.

On the island of Cheju off the coast of South Korea, villagers are struggling to prevent the construction of a South Korean naval base intended for U.S. military use. In 2009, one of us traveled there and can still remember the tattered yellow flags lining the fence posts of homes, symbolizing the movement’s determination to stop the project. Walking along the endangered rocky coastline at the edge of this quiet village of farmers and fisherfolk, it was clear that Cheju Island and other sites of U.S. military bases in Korea have borne enormous costs to the people and to the future of peace in the region.

A Huge Financial Cost

Most figures used to estimate the cost of U.S. wars omit the global network of U.S. bases that provides vital resources and infrastructure to existing military conflicts. The Pentagon’s 2010 Base Structure Report, for example, lists 662 overseas bases but fails to include the 411 bases in Afghanistan, the 88 remaining bases in Iraq, or sites in Qatar and other countries where U.S. military personnel are stationed. Maintaining and constructing all U.S. bases cost American taxpayers $41.6 billion in 2010, according to Undersecretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn.

Of these 662 overseas bases, more than 70 military installations and bases and 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute estimate that the cost of U.S. bases in Korea “probably runs on the order of $15 to $20 billion annually.” Although the United States and South Korea have agreed to reduce and consolidate the number of U.S. military bases in Korea, other bases and training ranges — including Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek — are expanding displacing thousands of villagers and destroying Korea’s productive and limited farmland. ­

The agreements governing the responsibility for U.S. base relocation in Korea illustrate the unequal dynamic prevalent in countries that host U.S. bases. Under the Special Measures and Base Relocation Agreements, the United States and South Korea agreed to share the cost burden of moving U.S. bases, with South Korea obligated to pay more than half that cost. In 2008, South Korea paid $741.4 million, angering South Koreans unhappy over having to foot the majority of the moving bill and pay to clean up 60 years of environmental contamination. At some of the 23 bases ”returned” to South Korea, the levels of contamination are 100 times above the limit set by Korean law. Cleanup at these sites will require years of decontamination at enormous cost to South Korean citizens, not to mention the public health and ecological consequences for generations to come.

Moreover, U.S. bases and troop presence are an extension of U.S. intervention in South Korea. Historically, the U.S. military provided legitimacy, economic aid, and protection to dictatorial regimes that maintained their power with brute force. Today, the U.S. and South Korean governments control and suppress dissent through the infrastructure of bases, particularly Pyeongtaek and Osan, which are now major U.S. military intelligence outposts for the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). While conducting research for his book Spies for Hire on the privatization of U.S. intelligence, Tim Shorrock found unsavory evidence of eavesdropping on Korean civilian activities by U.S. military bases located there. Although the primary target of surveillance activity is North Korea, U.S. intelligence also monitors China and Vietnam from Korean bases. What worries Shorrock is that since 9/11, what is considered a threat has widened to include almost any activity that questions or challenges U.S. interests. His discovery of the U.S. military in Korea colluding with Korean police to monitor anti-base activities is “an amazingly frank assessment that the anti-bases movement is being as closely monitored, and probably more so, than Al Qaeda - and basically puts the movement in the same camp as global terrorists." But it’s not just anti-base movements. Recently protests against the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement were also noted in the log of the U.S. forces in Korea.

Resistance to U.S. Military Bases in Korea

Given the fierce opposition to U.S. military bases throughout the Asia-Pacific rim, the United States has become savvy at reducing its military footprint in regions where its presence is politically contested. Rather than establish its own base, the U.S. military has sought the cover of the South Korean military in the construction of a new naval base in Cheju, an island located off the southern coast of South Korea.
The people of Cheju Island are known for their fierce resistance to Korea’s division and occupation by U.S. troops over the south during the post-World War II period. For their resistance, the people of Cheju paid dearly. Following the April 3 rebellion of 1948, South Korean government forces killed up to 30,000 people – more than one in ten residents –for opposing separate elections between the north and south and the U.S. occupation of the southern half of Korea. In a long-awaited gesture of apology, in 2005, former President Roh Moo-Hyun named Cheju the “Peace Island.”

Cheju Island is a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site and a national protected area by the Korean Cultural Heritage Administration. The Joongduk coastline, adjacent to Gangjeong village, is home to rare sea life, including soft coral, and is the seasonal habitat for dolphins migrating across the Pacific Ocean from Alaska during the summer.

In 2002, Seoul announced plans to build a naval base on Cheju. After two villages resisted, Gangjeong Village became the government’s third target. In 2007, 94 percent of the Gangjeong Village People’s Council voted “no” to the base plans. The government then proceeded to pressure residents. Some 1,500 farmers and fishermen live in Gangjeong village, including the legendary Haenye pearl divers—women in their 50s and older who forage in the sea for their livelihoods. Some of the villagers, including a few elderly Haenye divers, sold their farmland to the military under pressure from the South Korean government. According to Sung-Hee Choi, a South Korean peace activist and blogger, many of the villagers who signed the contract now regret their decision. However, they’ve been told that if they renege, they would have to pay back the money plus interest. Still, dozens of families are resisting the naval base construction.

In May 2009, the South Korean government approved construction of the joint U.S.-South Korean naval base. The military has begun to dredge the Joongduk coastline to accommodate the massive naval warships. If construction proceeds, it will not only destroy the rare coral reefs and surrounding ecosystems, it will kill the area’s fishing industry and displace citrus growers in Gangjeong village whose lands will be confiscated as part of the base expansion.

Gangjeong villagers have filed several lawsuits without much success. On December 15, 2010, a Cheju court ruled that the naval base did not infringe on the rights of the villagers, despite the projected destruction of the tangerine groves and the soft coral habitat where the villagers fish. The Gangjeong villagers have used every possible democratic means to block the base construction, but the South Korean government has been completely unresponsive. On Christmas Day, some 500 supporters joined dozens of villagers to block the cement trucks brought in by the Navy to pour concrete over the coral reefs along the shoreline.

The Cheju facility is ostensibly a South Korean naval base, but for all intents and purposes it will be used by the U.S. military. This was confirmed when Americans made calls to the South Korean embassy urging them to close the base, to which the South Korean embassy responded, “Call your own government, which is pressuring us to build this base.” The villagers are currently occupying the site, stopping the construction cranes from dredging up the shoreline and facing off against riot police.

Not for Korean Security

When most Americans learn how U.S. military bases are infringing on the sovereignty and rights of the Korean people, most agree that it’s high time for troops to be withdrawn. But many ask, what about the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea — who will protect the Korean people?

Although the U.S. military has long stated that it maintains a presence in South Korea to protect the civilian population, South Koreans have experienced the impunity with which U.S. troops behave on their territory. Organizations have documented thousands of crimes committed by soldiers against South Koreans. Between 1988 and 1996, U.S. troops committed an average of two crimes per day, ranging from the mundane to the heinous. The frequency of crimes committed by U.S. military personnel demonstrates the impunity with which U.S. forces act in South Korea — and likely, in many other host countries in which Status of Forces Agreements clearly give the U.S. military the upper hand. Furthermore, contrary to most fear-mongering projections of a nuclear-North Korea, “Most economic and military indicators show that South Korea has an edge over North Korea in almost all measures of power,” writes Jae-Jung Suh.
But perhaps more relevant today than the U.S.-South Korean military alliance is the grander regional alliance the United States has been forming in response to the perception of a growing Chinese military and economic threat. A key indicator of this is how the Mutual Defense alliance of the U.S. and South Korea has been transformed. Under the 2009 “Strategic Flexibility” agreement signed by Presidents Obama and Lee, the defense of South Korea is returned to Seoul, allowing the United States to deploy its forces outside Korea. Under the new arrangement, not only will South Korea be used as a rapid deployment hub for US military objectives elsewhere, South Korean troops will also be deployed for U.S.-led military deployments beyond Korean borders.
The realignment and consolidation of U.S. bases is also revealing. Many of the larger U.S. bases are along Korea’s West Coast and have moved away from the Demilitarized Zone toward more southern locations. This network of bases is part of a new missile defense shield directed as much toward China as toward North Korea. In the region as a whole, U.S. base expansions are taking place in Japan, Okinawa, Guam, Australia, and other key locations in the Asia-Pacific theatre, which effectively form a belt of bases that encircle China and Russia. The United States, South Korea and Japan have strengthened their tri-lateral alliance, which has resulted in more intense and frequent joint war games among all three nations, including the recent Key Resolve Foal Eagle ROK-U.S. joint military exercises involving 13,000 US troops and a nuclear aircraft carrier,

In a 2007 interview, former U.S. Forces in Korea Commander General B.B. Bell explained why South Korea was so vital to the United States by saying, “Twenty-five percent of the world’s trade flows through northeast Asia. Whether it’s Korea, Japan, or China, if you’re trading in the world, one out of every four things you trade, commodity-wise and dollar-wise, is going through that area.” Korea itself is the seventh-largest U.S. trading partner. Bell further explained the need for U.S. military engagement in Northeast Asia “because of the natural resources, lines of communication, and products that we will have to deliver around the world.”

But there’s more than cargo protection driving U.S. base strategy — U.S. bases are there to encircle China. Of all U.S. military bases, South Korea is the closest spot to Beijing, a strategic location to gather intelligence, and a key point for a possible standoff with China. The Project for the New American Century clearly states this: “Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status.”

This broader regional strategy also explains U.S. pressure on South Korea to build a naval base in Cheju. Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space explains why villages in Cheju are being destroyed to accommodate the expansion of the U.S. military base: “China imports 80 percent of its oil on ships and a Navy base on Cheju would help give the U.S. ability to ‘control’ this vital shipping lane in the Yellow Sea. While the declining U.S. economy can’t compete with China anymore, the Pentagon is embarking on a strategy that says if we can control access to declining supplies of oil then we will still hold the keys to the global economic engine.” This year, China surpassed the United States in energy consumption. As Michael Klare puts it, “China’s decisions on energy preferences will largely determine whether China and the United States can avoid becoming embroiled in a global struggle over imported oil and whether the world will escape catastrophic climate change.”

With bases encircling China, the U.S. military has the capacity to stave off a growing Chinese presence and control its growing demand for energy. South Koreans know this reality well. In a recent visit to Pyeongtaek, when Bruce Gagnon asked the Pyongtaek Peace Center, an organization based in South Korea, to whom the United States was directing its aggression, Center representatives replied, “Russia and China. Russia has large supplies of natural gas. It’s about energy wars.”

Close Down U.S. Bases and Cut Military Spending

As grassroots efforts are made in the U.S. to shift funding from the military budget to our communities, we must remember the active struggles of groups overseas that are directly resisting the footprint of U.S. military bases. Whether in Okinawa, Guam, or Korea, residents are on a daily basis fighting to stop the construction or expansion of U.S. military bases. Not only are the massive joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises diverting critically needed public dollars in both countries, they are moving the two Koreas further away from the promise of reconciliation and reunification. U.S. bases in Korea are no longer needed. The real issue is how these bases are serving to keep tensions high on the Korean peninsula and in the region as a whole.

Rather than accept the unending stalemate that continually threatens to erupt into war, in the United States, a broad movement is calling for the end of the Korean War, in solidarity with groups in South Korea that have long campaigned for the same demand. The signing of a peace treaty is the first step to demilitarizing not just the Korean peninsula, but also the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, and paving the way for a self-determined reunification of the two Koreas.

Bringing the war dollars home refers not just to active, hot-wars but also to the network of bases that makes war and U.S. empire-building possible and thwarts democratic advancement and the development of more just, equitable societies.
Perhaps few can express the importance of this struggle better than those who have defended their rights to land and life against US military interests. From 2004 to 2007, for nearly 1000 days, villagers in Pyongtaek, South Korea held candlelight vigils to stop the expansion of the US military base, Camp Humphreys. When asked by the South Korean Defense Ministry for the price for his land, Pyongtaek village leader Kim Ji Tae replied, "The price will be unimaginably high. The price must include every grain of rice grown and harvested here. It must include all of our efforts to grow them, as well as our whole life here, including our sighs, tears, and laughter. The price must include the stars, which have witnessed our grief and joy, and the wind, which has dried our tears. If all of these could be added, I would tell you the price."

We must call for the defunding of U.S. bases and war games, and join this global people’s struggle for peace and sovereignty.

Christine Ahn is the executive director of the Korea Policy Institute and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. Sukjong Hong is a member of Nodutdol for Korean Community Development and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)


Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth. ~Henry David Thoreau

Text Fwd: What the U.S. Can Do to Help Japan Recover - Stop Demanding Billions From Japan for U.S. Bases

_____________________________________
See also
Ten Thousand Things
Peace Philosophy Center
_____________________________________
* Text fwd from Joseph Gerson on March 18, 2011
_____________________________________
Dear our friends in the U.S. peace community,

This is Emiko HIRANO, international section head of the New Japan Women's
Association (Shinfujin).

Thank you very much for solidarity, compassion and support you have been
extending to us, in this most difficult time in our postwar history. You
keep reminding us that we are not alone in enduring and recovering from the
unprecedented tragedy.

President Barack Obama said in his statement on Thursday, "We will stand
with the people of Japan as they contain this crisis, recover from this
hardship, and rebuild their great nation." We are grateful that the
president of our ally is ready to do whatever it can to help us out of this
tragedy.

The New Japan Women's Association calls on our sisters and brothers, friends
of the U.S. peace and just movement to ask your president to return the
money he receives from the Japanese government, that is our taxpayers'
money, to cover the 75 percent of the cost of the U.S. military stationing
in Japan. We have over 130 U.S. military bases and facilities with about
40,000 personnel. The expenses for the maintaining the U.S. military in our
country is called "sympathy budget," (host nation support in your media)
because it covers far beyond the Japan's obligation under the Security
Treaty; it includes the salaries of the Japanese employees working in the
bases, as well as heating, electricity and water, and even dry-cleaning
charges of military families. In 2010, the expenses totaled nearly 190
billion yen (about $1.6 billion), and Japan covers 50 percent of all the
cost of U.S. military stationed around the world.

With the unprecedented scale of damage in Tohoku region, well-known for its
fishery and agricultural products, and the possible radiation contamination,
we need money for the rescue work and for assisting the people who barely
survived to recover. In the long run, Japan will need more and more money
not only for the reconstruction of the disaster-stricken areas but also for
recovering from the economic and human losses we are facing as a whole
nation. We cannot afford sustaining U.S. military bases and daily life of
the military families any more while we need money to help our fellow people
living in sorrow, grief and fear to get back to their normal life as soon as
possible, although life will not be the same as it used to be.

Please tell your president to show his support by saying that he kindly
declines to receive the "sympathy budget." Please tell your congresswomen,
congressmen and senators to present a resolution to this end.

Here in Japan, the New Japan Women's Association, urges the Japanese
government to stop spending the Japanese people money for maintaining the
U.S. military and to reallocate the budget for human need, with immediate
focus on the assistance to the Tohoku population. We believe this will lead
to the drastic cut in military spending to make our world safer for all and
more sustainable.


HIRANO Emiko

****************************************
International Section Head
New Japan Women's Association
5-10-20, Koishikawa, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0002 JAPAN
Phone: +81-3-3814-9141
Fax: +81-3-3814-9441
E-mail: s-intl@shinfujin.gr.jp / hiraemi@concerto.plala.or.jp
URL: http://www.shinfujin.gr.jp

Text Fwd: US Soldier jailed in South Korea on robbery, attempted rape charges

* Text fwd from Kyle Kajihiro on March 1, 2011

Stars and Stripes
Soldier jailed in South Korea on robbery, attempted rape charges
By Ashley Rowland and Yoo Kyong Chang
Published: February 28, 2011

SEOUL — A Camp Casey soldier remains in a South Korean jail charged with robbery and attempted rape after allegedly breaking into the home of an elderly Korean couple Saturday morning, according to Dongducheon police.

The 20-year-old soldier — whose name and rank have not been released — entered the home around 9 a.m. Saturday and allegedly beat the 70-year-old husband and his 64-year-old wife with a piece of lumber before attempting to rape the woman, according to a police spokesman who declined to be identified.

The couple remained in the intensive care unit of a local hospital on Monday with injuries sustained in the beating, police said. The police spokesman said the soldier, who has been in the military less than a year, is being held in a facility in Yangju.

Police arrested the soldier a few hours after the incident based on the couple’s description and bloodstains on the soldier’s shoes and socks, police said. The soldier denied his involvement in the attack, but later confessed after police told him they had found his wallet and identification card inside the couple’s house, located about 150 yards from Camp Casey, according to the spokesman.

Police said the soldier, who has been in stationed in South Korea for about three months, was drunk at the time of the attack.

2nd Infantry Division officials did not immediately return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment. However, 2nd Infantry Division commander Maj. Gen. Michael Tucker said in a statement released Monday that senior leaders had visited the family, and 2ID would continue working closely with South Korean police as they investigate the incident. “We deeply regret this deplorable incident and offer the family and the Korean people our most heartfelt sympathy,” the statement said. “This behavior is absolutely not in keeping with the high standards we expect of our Soldiers.”

chang.yookyong@pstripes.osd.mil
rowlanda@pstripes.osd.mil

Text Fwd: 7th Fleet Chief: U.S., Allies Boost Warships, Subs In Asia-Pacific

Stop NATO
Navy NewsStand
7th Fleet Chief: U.S., Allies Boost Warships, Subs In Asia-Pacific
February 22, 2011

'Commitment Remains Steadfast' in Asia-Pacific
By By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class (SW/AW) Kenneth R. Hendrix, U.S.
7th Fleet Public Affairs

-[T]he numbers of ships operating in the 7th Fleet on any given day are about 70 on average, which is about the same or more than it was a decade ago with increased capabilities aboard those ships today.

Van Buskirk cited the deployment to Japan of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) -- with greater speed, range, ammunition stowage and endurance, as an example of how the fleet's capabilities have increased.

HONG KONG: Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet Vice Adm. Scott R. Van Buskirk told members
of the Asia Society in Hong Kong on Feb. 21 that the Navy's increased capabilities and growing maritime partnerships reflect an enduring commitment...in the region.

"The 7th Fleet has actually increased its capabilities in several significant ways. The ships and aircraft that we operate today are vastly more capable than they were just a few years ago. At the same time, we have enhanced our maritime partnerships with navies around the region, enabling us to work together cooperatively more than ever before," Van Buskirk said.

He said the numbers of ships operating in the 7th Fleet on any given day are about 70 on average, which is about the same or more than it was a decade ago with increased capabilities aboard those ships today.

Van Buskirk cited the deployment to Japan of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) -- with greater speed, range, ammunition stowage and endurance, as an example of how the fleet's capabilities have increased.

He also cited the deployment of the Ohio-class fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), the 60-40 split of attack submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the recent deployment of the Virginia-class submarine USS Hawaii (SSN 776), which reflects the fleet's growing capability under the sea.

Van Buskirk added that upgrades to surface ships, including Ballistic Missile Defense capability and enhanced sonar suites, making them "increasingly potent."

He rejected the notion that the U.S., with its sluggish economy and military operations in Afghanistan, is lessening its commitment to the region.

"U.S. Navy and defense leadership continue to give me exactly the forces I need to do my mission," Van Buskirk said.

Improvements in capability have been made even stronger by a deepening of our alliances and partnerships around the region, Van Buskirk commented.

"Our alliance with Japan continues to be the cornerstone of our forward presence in Asia...." Van Buskirk said.

He also expanded on the alliance with the Republic of Korea, interoperability with the Royal Australian Navy and growth of navy-to-navy relations in Southeast Asia.
....
Van Buskirk reiterated that the U.S. Navy remains "committed and engaged".

"That is the message. We remain committed to this region, we remain committed to the Pacific and actively engaging where ever we can to foster maritime partnerships," he said.
______________________________

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
Stop NATO website and articles

Text Fwd: [famoksaiyanfriends] Julian Aguon: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet 미 국방부는 행성의 가장 큰 오염 원인

* Text Fwd from Martha Duenas on Oct. 25, 2010

Projectcensored.org

Excerpt

Project Censored Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009-2010

Sources:

Sara Flounders, “Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes: Pentagon’s Role in Global Catastrophe,” International Action Center, December 18, 2009

Mickey Z., “Can You Identify the Worst Polluter on the Planet? Here’s a Hint: Shock and Awe,” Planet Green, August 10, 2009

Julian Aguon, “Guam Residents Organize Against US Plans for $15B Military Buildup on Pacific Island,” Democracy Now!, October 9, 2009

Ian Macleod, “U.S. Plots Arctic Push,” Ottawa Citizen, November 28, 2009

Nick Turse, “Vietnam Still in Shambles after American War,” In These Times, May 2009

Jalal Ghazi, “Cancer—The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq,” New America Media, January 6, 2010

The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread pollution of the planet, yet this information and accompanying documentation goes almost entirely unreported. In spite of the evidence, the environmental impact of the US military goes largely unaddressed by environmental organizations and was not the focus of any discussions or proposed restrictions at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. This impact includes uninhibited use of fossil fuels, massive creation of greenhouse gases, and extensive release of radioactive and chemical contaminants into the air, water, and soil.

The extensive global operations of the US military (wars, interventions, and secret operations on over one thousand bases around the world and six thousand facilities in the United States) are not counted against US greenhouse gas limits. Sara Flounders writes, “By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.”

While official accounts put US military usage at 320,000 barrels of oil a day, that does not include fuel consumed by contractors, in leased or private facilities, or in the production of weapons. The US military is a major contributor of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that most scientists believe is to blame for climate change. Steve Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International, reports, “The Iraq war was responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from March 2003 through December 2007. . . .

That war emits more than 60 percent that of all countries. . . . This information is not readily available . . . because military emissions abroad are exempt from national reporting requirements under US law and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

According to Barry Sanders, author of The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism, “the greatest single assault on the environment, on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency . . . the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Throughout the long history of military preparations, actions, and wars, the US military has not been held responsible for the effects of its activities upon environments, peoples, or animals. During the Kyoto Accords negotiations in December 1997, the US demanded as a provision of signing that any and all of its military operations worldwide, including operations in participation with the UN and NATO, be exempted from measurement or reductions. After attaining this concession, the Bush administration then refused to sign the accords and the US Congress passed an explicit provision guaranteeing the US military exemption from any energy reduction or measurement.

Environmental journalist Johanna Peace reports that military activities will continue to be exempt based on an executive order signed by President Barack Obama that calls for other federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Peace states, “The military accounts for a full 80 percent of the federal government’s energy demand.”

As it stands, the Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined. Depleted uranium, petroleum, oil, pesticides, defoliant agents such as Agent Orange, and lead, along with vast amounts of radiation from weaponry produced, tested, and used, are just some of the pollutants with which the US military is contaminating the environment. Flounders identifies key examples:

READ MORE

Video Fwd: US Miliraty: Recruited or Volunteer Force? 미국 군대, 신병 보충된 것인가? 자원 군대인가?

From Bruce Gagnon blog
RECRUITING CENTER ACTION
on Oct. 22, 2010