Is anything really going to change with U.S. foreign policy?

[Roland99]

In light of the news that Sibel Edmonds has spoken to the UK Sunday Times and told a lot of what she knows about the selling of US nuclear info to Turkey and on to Pakistan and possibly Al Qaeda, what hope does our country have that someone will break the ties to foreign lobbyist efforts like the ATC and the AIPAC?

Because, at least re: the AIPAC, we have:


Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - Feb 2007
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268474


Barack Obama spoke before AIPAC in March 2007 and said:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.

John Edwards spoke at the 7th Annual Herzliya Conference re: AIPAC policy - Jan 2007:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.

Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas. While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel.

Outside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement. The US and Europe need to ensure that money going to the Palestinians does not go to lining the pockets of terrorists. For peace, Israel needs a partner.

Absent this partnership, Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel’s military strength, diplomatically and economically. The hurdles are clear.

For too long, the current US administration’s commitment to this issue has been halfhearted. Now, on the backdrop of Iraq, they have tried to bring the two sides together. This is especially significant since they have squandered America’s moral authority in the Middle East and around the world.

We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel’s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO’s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.

I weep for this nation.

[stillcool]

1. Is their anything that defines...

this country more than our military and foreign policy? The worst part of this reality for me, is that I can not fathom... how large the defense industry is...and where this country's military has been engaged over the last fifty or so years. The depth of my ignorance is astounding...so I don't know how one can get elected president without acquiescing to the long-term-government-entrenched-business-interests, that hold sway. I certainly don't know what the solution is, because I can hardly conceptualize the problem.

Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel
By Jules Dufour*
Global Research
July 1, 2007
II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide. In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries. The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2007/0701worldwide.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/uavroadmap2005.pdf
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/basestructurereport.pdf

Joint Vision 2020
America’s Military: Preparing for Tomorrow
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2000/jv2020_a.pdf
Strategic Context
Three aspects of the world of 2020 have significant implications for the US Armed Forces. First, the United States will continue to have global interests and be engaged with a variety of regional actors. Transportation, communications, and information technology will continue to evolve and foster expanded
economic ties and awareness of international events. Our security and economic interests, as well as our political values, will provide the impetus for engagement with international partners. The joint force of 2020 must be prepared to “win” across the full range of military operations in any part of the world, to
operate with multinational forces, and to coordinate military operations, as necessary, with government agencies and international organizations.

Second, potential adversaries will have access to the global commercial industrial base and much of the same technology as the US military. We will not necessarily sustain a wide technological advantage over
our adversaries in all areas. Increased availability of commercial satellites, digital communications, and the public internet all give adversaries new capabilities at a relatively low cost. We should not expect opponents in 2020 to fight with strictly “industrial age” tools. Our advantage must, therefore, come from leaders, people, doctrine, organizations, and training that enable us to take advantage of technology to achieve superior warfighting effectiveness.


Third, we should expect potential adversaries to adapt as our capabilities evolve. We have superior conventional warfighting capabilities and effective nuclear deterrence today, but this favorable military balance is not static. In the face of such strong capabilities, the appeal of asymmetric approaches and the focus on the development of niche capabilities will increase. By developing and using approaches
that avoid US strengths and exploit potential vulnerabilities using significantly different methods of operation, adversaries will attempt to create conditions that effectively delay, deter, or counter the application of US military capabilities.

[Roland99]

2. Without the defense industry, I'd bet our nation's GDP would be well into negative territory.

It's become the only thing keeping us from millions in lines for soup kitchens.

And that scares the ever-loving crap out of me.