US Bases (Again)

[a_unique_person]

Just bought the anti-american, but written by an american, book, 'Blowback'. It is about american foreign policy, and the way it has the unfortunate habit of causing terrorist retribution. Written by Chalmers Johnson.

Was interested to note that one of the first issues he discusses is the issue of US bases on foreign soil.

An instance of the problems this causes is mentioned.

The February 1998 incident in which a EA-6B prowler cut the line of a ski lift, killing the 20 people on board the lift.

THe italians for years had complained about low flying jets, they were not to operate under 1,000 feet.

This one was at 360 feet and going at 621 mph.

The pilot had been performing low level acrobatics while the co-pilot videtaped. This tape was later destroyed.

The air force personnel were given a court martial on US soil, and the they were exonerated for a training accident.

Pres Clinton apologised and promised compensation. This aid was opposed by the congress and the pentagon and dropped.

(Do you notice a pattern here. North Korean Nuclear Power, compensation to Vietnam that was never paid).

The local tragedy is portrayed as an isolated in the US. The people in the US wonder why the rest of the world gets so pissed off at them.

There are hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in 61 bases in nineteen countries.

If one included every kind of installation that houses US troops, the number would rise to over 800.

"There are, of course, no Italian bases on american soil. such a thougt would be ridiculous. Nor, for that matter, are there German, Indonesian, Russian, Greek, or Japanese troops stationed on Italian soil. Italy is, moreover, a close ally of the US and no conceivable enemy nation endagers it's shores.

All this is almost too obvious to state - and so is almost never said. It is simply not a matter for discussion, much less of debate in the land of the last imperial power."

[Ed]

I think that we should withdraw our troops from virtually everywhere, particularly Europe. Let them pay for their own defence.

[Doubt]

The incident involving the EA-6B was tragic. I do believe the crew involved should have received a greater punishment than they did. However, your statement here has a few problems.

The plane involved was flown by the marines. The airforce does not operate EA-6B's. This is a minor detail, but I wonder if it was your mistake or did the author of the book do some sloppy research. This would cause me to wonder if you or the author understand the subject. This may seem like nit picking, but those little details are not hard to check out. This is what fact checkers are for.

The pilots did not get away without any punishment. The crew was convicted of destroying evidence. Some how your post makes it sound like nothing happened to them. Was this the book or you that ignored this?

http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-99/05-11-99/a04wn025.htm


CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. -- The Marine pilot who was acquitted of manslaughter in the Italian cable car tragedy was sentenced to six months in prison and dismissed from the corps yesterday for helping destroy a videotape of the flight.
Capt. Richard Ashby, 32, of Mission Viejo, Calif., became the first crewman to go to prison in connection with the accident that killed 20 people. Because the dismissal takes effect upon his release from prison, he was also ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances, including those for food and housing.
He could have gotten as much as 10 years behind bars from the military jury that convicted him last week of obstructing justice and conspiracy for his actions after the 1998 accident, in which his plane sliced through a ski cable in the Italian Alps.


Your example is ultimately useless since the Italians do not appear to be involved in terrorism. The people that are involved in such acts are incensed by such horrible things such as American woman driving trucks and serving in the military. The occasional act of stupidity and/or negligence which results in death does not appear to be on the list of grievances of Al Quada.

The presence of US troops in Europe is a legacy of the cold war. Having troops there now is questionable. But their presence has made it easier to back up deployments to current and future hot spots around the globe. Italy is a short hop away from the former Yugoslavia. If the US did not have forces in Italy and Germany, it would have taken a very long time for the military to respond to the series of problems encountered in the Balkans.

Italy is the most logical choice for the deployment of US troops and logistical support in the Mediterranean. Since the facilities already exist and the location is secure, it will remain the ideal choice.

Now some questions for you AUP:

Have you ever looked into the number of US troops stationed in Europe? You may find something interesting about the numbers since the end of the cold war.

Do you always take the word of authors like Chalmers Johnson at face value? The man is a political science professor at Berkley. The chance of getting a balance view from that institution is quite small.

Have you ever looked into the foreign troop deployments of countries other than the US? Start with the French foreign legion.

[Iwentsouth]

Whatever.

[a_unique_person]

They should have been tried in Italy by an Italian court for homicide. They were exonerated for murder, but convicted for the tape. A technicality.

Either way, as iwentsouth indicates, the italians really don't matter. it is what the US thinks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt
The incident involving the EA-6B was tragic. I do believe the crew involved should have received a greater punishment than they did. However, your statement here has a few problems.



how about criminal?



The plane involved was flown by the marines. The airforce does not operate EA-6B's. This is a minor detail, but I wonder if it was your mistake or did the author of the book do some sloppy research. This would cause me to wonder if you or the author understand the subject. This may seem like nit picking, but those little details are not hard to check out. This is what fact checkers are for.



marines it was, my error



The pilots did not get away without any punishment. The crew was convicted of destroying evidence. Some how your post makes it sound like nothing happened to them. Was this the book or you that ignored this?



why were they not tried by italians in italy?



Your example is ultimately useless since the Italians do not appear to be involved in terrorism. The people that are involved in such acts are incensed by such horrible things such as American woman driving trucks and serving in the military. The occasional act of stupidity and/or negligence which results in death does not appear to be on the list of grievances of Al Quada.



they are not involved in terrorism. they, may, however, wonder what it is about the US that means it can let it's armed forces treat them with such contempt. and this sort of incident is not isolated. military are regularly being caught committing crime in areas they have requirement to be in.




The presence of US troops in Europe is a legacy of the cold war. Having troops there now is questionable. But their presence has made it easier to back up deployments to current and future hot spots around the globe. Italy is a short hop away from the former Yugoslavia. If the US did not have forces in Italy and Germany, it would have taken a very long time for the military to respond to the series of problems encountered in the Balkans.



There were other forces in the area, not of the US. it may have taken a little longer to get there, maybe weeks. so what.



Italy is the most logical choice for the deployment of US troops and logistical support in the Mediterranean. Since the facilities already exist and the location is secure, it will remain the ideal choice.



ideal for whom?



Now some questions for you AUP:

Have you ever looked into the number of US troops stationed in Europe? You may find something interesting about the numbers since the end of the cold war.



the bases are still there. and even during the cold war, they were mostly redundant.



Do you always take the word of authors like Chalmers Johnson at face value? The man is a political science professor at Berkley. The chance of getting a balance view from that institution is quite small.



the case he has presented seems pretty good to me



Have you ever looked into the foreign troop deployments of countries other than the US? Start with the French foreign legion.

it is not a long list, and the french have nothing like the deployments the US has, and as for military bases, the list would be even shorter.

much of the foreign deployments are under the control of the UN, and once again, deployments, not bases.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They should have been tried in Italy by an Italian court for homicide. They were exonerated for murder, but convicted for the tape. A technicality.

Either way, as iwentsouth indicates, the italians really don't matter. it is what the US thinks.

Please come to my country and protect me so that I won't have to spend billions to protect myself. However, if any accidents happen you must turn over your soldiers so that we may jail them without any regard to the laws of your military, or the USA.

Some deal AUP. :rolleyes:

I like it. I think we should treat every foreign diplomat on American soil in the exact way you mention here. I bet NYC could rebuild the twin towers just off the parking ticket money owed by UN scofflaws.

:D

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Please come to my country and protect me so that I won't have to spend billions to protect myself. However, if any accidents happen you must turn over your soldiers so that we may jail them without any regard to the laws of your military, or the USA.

Some deal AUP. :rolleyes:

I like it. I think we should treat every foreign diplomat on American soil in the exact way you mention here. I bet NYC could rebuild the twin towers just off the parking ticket money owed by UN scofflaws.

:D

-z

they weren't protecting anyone from anything. they were out hooning around and breaking orders.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


why were they not tried by italians in italy?


They were not tried by the Italians because of the SOFA, (Status of forces agreement.) This exists in pretty much every country that the US stations troops on a permanent basis. It serves a number of different purposes, one of which is to prevent politically motivated prosecution of US soldiers. If this is considered a major problem of Italy, the government could always ask the US troops to leave. This has not happened.

Also note that the SOFA varies from country to country. Here is a little bit of information on the agreement in Italy:

http://www.lifelines2000.org/services/articles/20020808/122922.asp?RootID=381


U.S. military personnel and family members are subject to Italian law and come under Italian jurisdiction for most criminal offenses, unless the act was performed in the line of duty.


Of course, you probably would not have looked that one up for yourself, since you really did not want to know that US forces can be prosecuted by the locals if they do something wrong. It the SOFA did not exist, they would probably have been tried by the Italian military with the same result as the US. You could look into the details of the case, but I am sure you don’t care about the details.

Now once again I will ask you the same question that you did not yet answer: Was it you or the book that ignored that the pilots of the EA-6B went to prison?


they are not involved in terrorism. they, may, however, wonder what it is about the US that means it can let it's armed forces treat them with such contempt. and this sort of incident is not isolated. military are regularly being caught committing crime in areas they have requirement to be in.


No big surprise that when you station a few 100,000 people overseas that some of them are going to commit crimes. But what is the crime rate of the US military compared to the local populations where they are stationed?

I have never seen any statistics that compare the number of crimes to the number of troops. I do know that these crimes get a great deal of press. The amount of press coverage tells you what sells newspapers, not how often these things really happen. Another great comparison would be to look at the numbers comparing crime rates by US troops to crimes committed by the armed forces of the countries that they are stationed in. Some how we never see that sort of thing published. I guess it won’t sell any newspapers.


There were other forces in the area, not of the US. it may have taken a little longer to get there, maybe weeks. so what.


Yes, there were other forces in the area. They either would not or could not do anything without the US. That includes the “peace keepers” who were already in the area while the atrocities were underway. The response time to Bosnia mattered. The faster forces entered the country the less time there was to cover up what happened.


ideal for whom?


Ideal for NATO. Look at a map and tell me a better location for covering the Mediterranean.


the bases are still there. and even during the cold war, they were mostly redundant.


Some, but not all of the bases are still there. They are also still relevant. It takes about a month to move a US heavy division by ship. If something happens in the Balkans again, should we all wait a month before the first heavy units reach the area? I would like to know why you think the US presence in Europe was redundant in the cold war? Is this an example of your superior knowledge of tactics and strategy? I will warn you ahead of time; Any source that is not from someone with a military background will be laughed at and ridiculed.


the case he has presented seems pretty good to me


And I am sure any far left radical anti-US source is going to look good to you. I think you have a huge confirmation bias problem.


it is not a long list, and the french have nothing like the deployments the US has, and as for military bases, the list would be even shorter.

much of the foreign deployments are under the control of the UN, and once again, deployments, not bases.

Sure! The French never deploy the Foreign Legion to old colonies without UN permission. And they don’t have any bases. How long have they been in Chad now?

http://www.foreignlegionlife.com/chapter5.htm


Africa is a regular destination of the Legion. The only countries you would normally conduct operations in are Chad and Djibouti though the possibility always exists for French troops to be deployed anywhere. French interests in Africa are still widespread. Africa is a volatile continent due to incessant tribal disputes and there is a regular need for foreign intervention.


True enough that France keeps fewer troops on foreign deployment than the US, but it is a regional power these days. But that is just the French. Now what other countries keep troops permanently stationed overseas? I will give you a hint. There are a lot of English speaking soldiers in Brunei.

The US may have to most troops overseas, but we also have a very large army and global commitments.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt


They were not tried by the Italians because of the SOFA, (Status of forces agreement.) This exists in pretty much every country that the US stations troops on a permanent basis. It serves a number of different purposes, one of which is to prevent politically motivated prosecution of US soldiers. If this is considered a major problem of Italy, the government could always ask the US troops to leave. This has not happened.

Also note that the SOFA varies from country to country. Here is a little bit of information on the agreement in Italy:

http://www.lifelines2000.org/services/articles/20020808/122922.asp?RootID=381



Of course, you probably would not have looked that one up for yourself, since you really did not want to know that US forces can be prosecuted by the locals if they do something wrong. It the SOFA did not exist, they would probably have been tried by the Italian military with the same result as the US. You could look into the details of the case, but I am sure you don’t care about the details.



line of duty is different to hooning around. the locals have apparently complained about low flying aircraft plenty of times. the italians have requested no aircraft below 2,000 feet, the US have ignored this and stated 1,000 feet. These guys were wooping it up at about 300 feet.



Now once again I will ask you the same question that you did not yet answer: Was it you or the book that ignored that the pilots of the EA-6B went to prison?




the book did not ignore it. if you look at the article and the book, the only reference made was to the direct crime of murder. the pilots only went to jail for destroying the tape.



No big surprise that when you station a few 100,000 people overseas that some of them are going to commit crimes. But what is the crime rate of the US military compared to the local populations where they are stationed?



sure you will get crimes, and how many of them are tried by the local authorities. and do those people want them there any more.




Yes, there were other forces in the area. They either would not or could not do anything without the US. That includes the “peace keepers” who were already in the area while the atrocities were underway. The response time to Bosnia mattered. The faster forces entered the country the less time there was to cover up what happened.


Ideal for NATO. Look at a map and tell me a better location for covering the Mediterranean.



so nato, comprising about 20 countries, at a guess, is incapable of dealing with this situation till the US arrives?



Some, but not all of the bases are still there. They are also still relevant. It takes about a month to move a US heavy division by ship. If something happens in the Balkans again, should we all wait a month before the first heavy units reach the area? I would like to know why you think the US presence in Europe was redundant in the cold war? Is this an example of your superior knowledge of tactics and strategy? I will warn you ahead of time; Any source that is not from someone with a military background will be laughed at and ridiculed.



and you will get laughed at for thinking that everything in the world has something to do with the US. The bases are fine for US strategy, but what about the rest of the world? Also, why does military thinking have to dominate everything. there are other ways to consider the world and how it works. US foreign policy appears to be dominated by the military.



And I am sure any far left radical anti-US source is going to look good to you. I think you have a huge confirmation bias problem.



to you he might appear to be a far left radical, the basic facts he has come up with appear to be correct to me.



Sure! The French never deploy the Foreign Legion to old colonies without UN permission. And they don’t have any bases. How long have they been in Chad now?

http://www.foreignlegionlife.com/chapter5.htm



True enough that France keeps fewer troops on foreign deployment than the US, but it is a regional power these days. But that is just the French. Now what other countries keep troops permanently stationed overseas? I will give you a hint. There are a lot of English speaking soldiers in Brunei.

The US may have to most troops overseas, but we also have a very large army and global commitments.

The french have had a lot to answer for over the years, from vietnam to rainbow warrior to the present issues they are involved in. They don't however, cause anywhere near the problems the US does. for example, they are opposing the current proposal for war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Please come to my country and protect me so that I won't have to spend billions to protect myself. However, if any accidents happen you must turn over your soldiers so that we may jail them without any regard to the laws of your military, or the USA.

Some deal AUP. :rolleyes:

I like it. I think we should treat every foreign diplomat on American soil in the exact way you mention here. I bet NYC could rebuild the twin towers just off the parking ticket money owed by UN scofflaws.

:D

-z

how many ridiculous arguments can you put in the one short post?

[Reginald]

AUP.....Its not like the US are the ONLY country with overseas bases is it?

Why not broaden the arguement a bit, have a look at UK service men who have made serious errors of judgement.

If you delve deeply enough you may find that there are similar cases for the French.

Resentment to US bases? Not near me there isnt, I have a US base not far north of me and my freinds who live closer say that they are very happy to have them there. They do a LOT besides drive around in jeeps you know. In Fact it would make a change, a remarkable change to see a post entitled "The things that US bases do, that are really nice for the community they are in but dont make a song and dance about it because no one likes to blow their own trumpet". (If that would fit on a header).

But then I guess such a post would be unfashionable no?

:rolleyes:

[Doubt]

Originally posted by cavin
Unique is interesting in that he claims to be a skeptic, but bases his base arguement on only one document that is from a man with a very suspect history. Skeptics do a little more homework, usually. maybe he is the Cokelight of Skeptics...
I've heard through my navyflyboy friends that nobody was more pissed off about the light sentence than the military rank and file. Those Marines were outta line and should be tried for murder.
It's like when a hunter who blew away a mom in Maine got off for blowing her away...his defense was she was wearing white mittens....hunters were the most enraged by this, because they know it will only hurt their image, and certainly the "No Hunting" "No Trespassing" signs went up overnight.

AUP's lack of skepticism is not unique. Most people disregard information that does not confirm their preconceived political notions.

Generally, most people think that their point of view on political situations are correct. Most will acknowledge that the political model which they subscribe to is flawed, but won't check out information that contradicts their ideals. Unfortunately, this is even true for a great many skeptics on this board.

AUP's position stick out more than most for two reasons:

1.) His point of view is far left of center. Nobody else here would ever have started a thread defending Karl Marx.

2.) His political bias filter is a bit thicker than most. This thread is his second attempt at trashing the US military presence overseas. If he had some first had experience in or around a military organization, he might open the filter up a bit. However, I don't think he is interested in other perspectives.

Many other posters here have political bias filters that are just as thick. Several are far worse. But you won't notice it as much if their positions are closer to center. Unfortunately, many otherwise good skeptics are not good political skeptics.

A few things to watch for when looking for bias:

1.) Claims that party X has a superior political philosophy. They are all based on weak models of reality. None of them are very good. The real world is a complex place.

2.) Claims that others who subscribe to a different philosophy know that they are wrong, but just want to win or score points. This is almost never true. Just because you think that someone else is wrong does not mean they know it. It certainly does not mean that your philosophy is right. Politics is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of room for everyone to get it wrong.

3.) Routinely rejects sources of information without examining the evidence. This is the most common filtering process that I know of. Even when a source of information is biased, that does not mean that you can reject information just because you don't like it. If you think a source is biased, then look to see what alternate sources can tell you. Also, be aware that the most common form of news bias is not to outright lie but to omit information.

4.) Remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. Sound familiar? Most people will forget information that does not fit their model of reality. It does not mater if it is John Edwards or your favorite political commentator. That which resonates with you is remembered. That which does not is likely to be rejected.

Two common issues where we need more skepticism on this board:

The Iraq question. If you don't have any second thoughts about your position (what ever it may be), then you aren't thinking hard enough.

Gun control. Major conformation bias problem on both sides. Can anyone find a source that is unbiased on this issue? I cannot.

[/soap box]

(edited to insert the word view and clean up a few phrases.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by cavin
Unique is interesting in that he claims to be a skeptic, but bases his base arguement on only one document that is from a man with a very suspect history. Skeptics do a little more homework, usually. maybe he is the Cokelight of Skeptics...
I've heard through my navyflyboy friends that nobody was more pissed off about the light sentence than the military rank and file. Those Marines were outta line and should be tried for murder.
It's like when a hunter who blew away a mom in Maine got off for blowing her away...his defense was she was wearing white mittens....hunters were the most enraged by this, because they know it will only hurt their image, and certainly the "No Hunting" "No Trespassing" signs went up overnight.

Which is a point I have often raised, that the average USian is not necessarily such a bad guy. The peace demonstrations confirm this. The reaction that those marines, from the rank and file, should be tried for murder is not at all surprising.

There are many ex military and reservists on this board who seem to be reasonable people, (as well as the weirdo's).

The question, then, is why is the US military leadership so intent on the current course it is on? If the average USian appears to be reasonable, why is the military consistently on a course that is at a tangent?