(267)S11E7/6 Government Propaganda in the Real World w/Dr. David Vine
Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. For this episode, I had the privilege of interviewing doctor David Vine, author of Base Nation and the United States of War. I wanted to interview doctor Vine because I think he has a lot of experience in uncovering the fictitious world of the US military and US foreign policy that we citizens believe while simultaneously showing us the real world ramifications of our actions. The United States often perceives itself as the world's policeman, the purveyor and sustainer of democracy, and a defensive fighter who only engages enemies for self protection and for reasons of upholding justice for the downtrodden. Before jumping into the interview, I wanna point out a few takeaways to give you an easier time digesting our conversation in real time.
Derek Kreider:While we ended up discussing some justice issues in history which didn't directly relate to propaganda, my conversation with doctor Vine ended up focusing on 3 primary aspects of military and governmental propaganda, which you can trace throughout the episode. First, we talked about the importance of understanding motives. It is absolutely vital to understand potential motives in order to recognize the reality of a situation. The range of motives will help you to more accurately interpret information. If you didn't understand the range of motives that can exist for those who post ads on Craigslist, for example, then you might just go and meet that poor young college girl who's selling her car because she needs money to finish her schooling and you might meet her in an empty dark parking lot in the middle of the night and you might find out that it's not really a, college girl who's in need of money, but somebody who wants your money.
Derek Kreider:You can take the information that you're given on Craigslist at face value that, she's a vulnerable person in need of money to pursue a good thing that she's been working hard on. But if you understand that information on Craigslist can be manipulated and that the motive of some people is to lure you to an isolated location to steal your money, then you may pass up many offers that either seem too good to be true because they probably are or offers presented by seemingly distraught individuals. Motives are no less important when we get to discussions related to US foreign policy. Understanding who benefits from our actions and why information may be presented in a particular way will be vital to opening our eyes to the possibility of what's going on. Potential motive doesn't prove any given action, but it opens your eyes to see what may be present.
Derek Kreider:Understanding motive is sort of like a where's Waldo book. You spend 5 minutes looking for Waldo and eventually find him. But then there are these follow-up quests that the book gives you, like finding his camera that he dropped or his cane or something like that. When you find the cane, you say to yourself, man, when I was looking for Waldo, I looked directly at that spot a 100 times, but I never noticed the cane. And it's because you weren't primed to see it.
Derek Kreider:You were zeroed in on one narrative, one objective, seeing Waldo. Until you knew that there were other things to see, your vision was tunneled. Part of what propaganda does to us is it tunnels our vision. It gets us to see one narrative or one potential truth, and all the while that our eyes are open, we're really blinded to what's right in front of us because we only have eyes for Waldo. While motives are important to understand, they only cue us into a range of possibilities and likelihoods.
Derek Kreider:They don't tell us how information is being wielded, just how it might be. But once we understand the range of possibilities, we can start looking for how information has been used against us so we can uncover truth. In this episode, we explore 2 primary ways in which the military has propagandized us. 1st, the military uses linguistic legertamine. Doctor Vine covers a number of different ways the military has used language to soften the reality of what they've done to oppress certain groups of people or how they hide the extent of their overseas actions through the manipulation of different vocabulary and terms.
Derek Kreider:The second implementation of propaganda that we discuss is an invocation of fear. All people have strong felt needs and desires, safety, freedom, and comfort being 3 of the biggest. The military taps into all three of these needs and pitches to us that we should live in great fear that these three desires or needs are in grave peril. But alas, thank God there's a savior who can uphold all three of these for us, the US military. If we give them a $1,000,000,000,000 a year and uncritical support for their foreign policy and the blood of our sons and daughters, then we can continue to live safely in freedom and comfort.
Derek Kreider:Almost all propaganda utilizes fear as a catalyst towards belief in a product that just so happens to assuage that fear. We find that the US military is no different. So that's the basic outline of our discussion, and, hopefully, that helps you to wade through what we talk about. And, hopefully, it prepares you to see Waldo, his cane, and his camera. Because the topic was so dense, we didn't get to everything that I wanted to get to.
Derek Kreider:So please make sure that you check out the show notes for doctor Vine's links and for other links that I thought might be applicable to follow-up with in light of our discussion. I think that's pretty much all for the intro. So here's my conversation with doctor David Vine. So, in this interview, I wanted to talk to you about, propaganda surrounding the military and war. And that's because I I recently finished reading your book, Base Nation, where you bring to light what's those of us like me who have grown up in the US might not be able to see about our own nation.
Derek Kreider:I I felt like you gave me a glimpse as to why some parts of the world despise the US and, you know, some of the negative impact that the US military policy often has on the world that I just don't see otherwise. And, you know, the the negative impact that US military policy has on the world that I I don't see. So I would in this discussion, I really want to primarily talk about the way that the military tries to to obfuscate some important truths. So in order that that we keep buying into their sales pitch that we need more bases and we need to keep the bases that we have. And I wanna talk about their their use of manipulation of information.
Derek Kreider:But before we jump into that discussion, doctor Varn, I would love for you to introduce yourself and tell us how you came to be passionate about the topic of discussion today.
Dr. Vine:Well, first, Derek, thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to to talk about all these topics and complicated questions. I think like you, I had little idea of the impacts that the United States military, United States government was having around the world for most of my life. I think I grew up like most people in the United States, going to school and getting a pretty traditional, education and introduction to to US history that was celebratory, that was about the the heroes of US wars. The the focus on war in particular was was very stark in portraying the United States as always the the good guys.
Dr. Vine:And that was the world I grew up in. And I, you know, I think I I gained something of a critical view by going to a Quaker school. I was lucky enough to go to a Quaker school, that had an emphasis on, of course, nonviolence and and opposition to war. But still, I I grew up like most people in the US with a pretty standard traditional view of of the country and its its place in the world as as being fundamentally a good one and not having and just having beneficial impacts on the world. My story is a long one and I've probably already gone on too long, but I would say that my views of the role of the U.
Dr. Vine:S. Government and the U. S. Military in the world changed dramatically when I was introduced to the Chagosian people. Early in graduate school, I was introduced to these people called the Chagosians who were living in exile and have been living in exile for more than 50 years.
Dr. Vine:And they've been living in exile because the U. S. And British governments forcibly removed them from their homes, from their homeland, their home islands. They are a group of people of African and Indian ancestry who'd been living on islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean until the mid 1960s when the US government came along and said it wanted to build a military base on the Chagosian's largest island called Diego Garcia. Some people may know about it.
Dr. Vine:I vaguely had some memory of it from the first US Gulf War against Iraq, 1991. But I knew nothing, and most people in the United States know nothing of of how that base came to be, which is in large part because the US with the help of the British government deported forcibly the entire Chagosian population and dumped them in exile, in the western Indian Ocean in the western Indian Ocean Islands of Mauritius and Seychelles. And this is between 1967 and 1973. And around 2,001, I got a phone call from some lawyers representing the Chagosians. They've been suing the U.
Dr. Vine:S. And British governments to get the right to return to their homeland and to get some proper compensation for what has happened to them. And I began to do some work to document the effects of expulsion. I'm sure most of your listeners can imagine that being forcibly removed from your home and from your islands, from the place of your birth, the place of your ancestors, this is not good for your health, to say the least. The Chigot seems to have were plunged into profound poverty.
Dr. Vine:And it's a longer story that I can get into, but their story really opened my eyes to first their story, but to the story of US military bases around the world. Most people in the United States have no clue that the US military maintains today around 750 military bases in other countries and colonies. 750 military bases in around 80 countries and colonies. Now that's sort of an abstract number but compare that to the number of U. S.
Dr. Vine:Embassies and consulates and missions there are only about 276 U. S. Embassies, consulates, and missions compared to the 750 bases abroad. It shows how militarized our foreign policy has become, and the bases, 750 bases, range in size from massive, literally, city sized bases, tens of thousands of troops and family members, schools, hospitals, yoga studios, fast food, all the trappings of a not so small American town, to much smaller bases. So they range in size, but they're all over the world.
Dr. Vine:And this is the often the face of the United States in other countries. And it's been that way since World War 2 in particular, although the United States has maintained bases abroad since independence, essentially. And these bases have played a key role in launching a very long series of U. S. Wars, and, all the damage that has come with those wars.
Dr. Vine:As well as having a range of damaging effects on the people living around the bases in foreign countries as well as on US military personnel and their families and on people living in the United States. And I'll stop here, but it it's just important to see that I would encourage people to to try to picture some of the infrastructure that if you're living in the United States, some of the infrastructure around you in your local community. I'm guessing there are roads that are badly deteriorating, bridges that are now in dangerous conditions, at risk of falling, public transportation infrastructures that have been hollowed out. Compare that to a an extraordinarily robust set of 750 US military bases abroad that US taxpayers are spending around $80,000,000,000 a year to maintain. 80,000,000,000 of dollars a year to maintain the infrastructure and the troops on those bases.
Dr. Vine:And just think what $80,000,000,000 a year could do to improve the infrastructure and communities around the United States among other ways, we could be spending $80,000,000,000 a year.
Derek Kreider:Wow. Yeah. There's there's a lot that you said that I wanna get into, but it's it's extremely helpful to understand what started you you on that path. And and it seemed like the Chagosians, from listening to your book, but also, you know, just talking with you, the Chagosians and kind of seeing that plight in action, you know, putting flesh onto the problem was was kind of the motivator for you.
Dr. Vine:It was. It was. Yeah. I'm really I, you know, I'm greatly indebted to the Chagosians in a number of ways. They changed my life, and I've, tried to pay that back in some respects, including by donating, the the royalties from my books to the Chagosians and and to others who are victims of war.
Derek Kreider:So, you know, talking about your motivation is is great. Now I wanna talk a little bit about, the government and the military's motivation, because I think a lot of times to be able to see the problem, you have to understand, well, you know, what's the motive?
Dr. Vine:You know,
Derek Kreider:in a murder case, you need the weapon, but you but the motive is is extremely important to be able to see how things play out. So, your book was was extremely helpful in a lot of ways in helping me see the motive, but I was kind of primed to see it because I had first read Smedley Butler's famous, you know, War is a Racket a couple years ago. And, you know, for those who don't know, Major Smedley, Major General Smedley Butler, he was, and correct me if if I'm wrong, but I think he still is the the most decorated marine, veteran in history, in US history.
Dr. Vine:Certainly certainly was.
Derek Kreider:I mean Either way. Right? He, he he was definitely involved in the military, so he would have, had a a bias towards wanting to prop up the the things that he did for the military. But he comes out with this book that, you know, says, No War's a Racket. Like, I realized that all the things they had me do was for big business, and it was it was no good.
Derek Kreider:It was basically empire building. And, he kind of he kind of exposes that to the world. And, I think, you know, in your book, you kind of put some more flesh, more details to kind of what Butler uncovered. You you explore a number of beneficiaries of war and overseas bases. So, countries benefit from foreign aid and in country spending by by the troops that are stationed there.
Derek Kreider:They're spending their money overseas instead of, you know, here in the United States. Businesses get tax exemptions or, you know, benefits from from having money that's accrued overseas as opposed to in the US. Stockholders benefit from goods being purchased, exorbitantly a lot of times by the the military. And, so the stockholders benefit. Construction companies and landlords overseas with the influx of bodies.
Derek Kreider:And you even you can get into the mafia in Italy, which which I thought was interesting that we're, you know, we're we're helping them too. And then for an infrastructure, which you just touched on, which, was was a phenomenal insight to me to realize, oh, yeah. We you know, this idea of socialism is is railed against at you know, here in the US, but, you know, in military bases, you basically have have a form of of socialism and public transportation and going green and all that kind of stuff. That's that's a ton a ton right there. I would love for you to maybe whittle that down to a few take home points about, what the motives are, who the who the main players are that benefit from this type of policy of overseas bases.
Dr. Vine:Great questions. And I I think it's important to point out just, first of all, how rare this situation is in which the US military is occupying approximately 80 foreign countries and colonies with 750 military bases. This is around 700 excuse me, this is around 75 to 85 percent of the world's foreign military bases, Which is to say there are a few other countries that have foreign military bases. Bases on other countries' territories. France and Britain have, dozens, especially there maybe as many as a 145 British foreign military bases.
Dr. Vine:France might have a couple dozen. Russia has 12 to 36 foreign military bases. The numbers are hard to pin down because of the secretive nature of bases and because, the definition of a base itself is hard to establish in their different definitions. But approximately 12 to 36 Russian foreign military bases. Compare that to 70 750 US foreign bases.
Dr. Vine:Or China, 8 at most. 8 foreign military bases compared to the 750. So this massive, collection of US bases abroad, it's the largest collection of foreign military bases in world history, larger than any empire or people or country in world history. And these bases, as I mentioned before, have had a range of damaging effects on people around the world, on people in the United States. In addition to some of the effects I pointed to already, these bases have had, you know, intense environmental damage on the surrounding land and waters.
Dr. Vine:They also have carbon footprints that increase the overall carbon footprint of the U. S. Military that is, as large as countries like Sweden, massive carbon footprint contributing to global warming. These bases are also damaging locals in a range of ways contributing to accidents and often U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military personnel sadly perpetrate crimes against locals that of course doesn't tend to build a lot of goodwill between the U. S. Military and locals. They're often exploitative prostitution industries around these bases. And again I pointed to the ways in which $80,000,000,000 a year approximately of taxpayer funds are directed to maintain these bases every year or siphoned off from US taxpayers and from the needs we have here at home.
Dr. Vine:So there are a lot of ways in which these bases damage, like, over millions of people around the world and even the United States. But as you pointed out, it's critical to see how these bases benefit some. Unfortunately it's a very small group of businesses and elites who tend to benefit from the existence of these bases. You know that $80,000,000,000 a year has to go somewhere and a lot of it goes to major military contractors who make up part of what Eisenhower identified as the military industrial complex or the military industrial congressional complex. So they are among the most important of the beneficiaries.
Dr. Vine:As Smedley Butler pointed out, they're U. S. Corporations operating abroad who tend to like the presence of the U. S. Military as a kind of enforcer, a kind of, military muscle that, ensures their profit making activities.
Dr. Vine:Oil companies, of course, come to mind immediately, but others who are seeking natural resources, even the airline industry in some ways has benefited from US bases abroad since World War 2 in particular. So it's important to see the ways in which a small relatively small group of elites and elite corporations have benefited mightily in the maintenance of this huge infrastructure of U. S. Bases abroad while the vast majority of people in the United States and around the world have tended to
Derek Kreider:suffer. Yeah. And, digging into, into part of that as well. You know, when you when you do talk about how the military bases are equipped overseas, and we do pump a lot of money into those things. We do know that that businesses benefit a lot from it, but also the the US soldiers and the people stationed on the bases benefit a lot too.
Derek Kreider:And, I I don't remember if you made this point exactly. I I thought you did, but if not, it it, at least led me to to, following up on this. But I think you said that it it's essentially like socialism, where you have you said something to the extent of, like, the top earner in the military earns only about 10 times what the the lowest soldier earns. And you have all of this, you have a lack of disparity, you have equality in health care, you have equality in all of these things. Yet, over here in the US, you know, you look way back in in, the in terms of the civil rights movement and and, in in regard to race.
Derek Kreider:Well, if if somebody was, was pro civil rights movement, they were labeled a socialist or a communist. And, that follows even up to today. If you're, in support of Black Lives Matter or something like that, then you must be a Marxist or a communist. And so this, this socialism idea, we, we are very against, but I think you, you pictured it very well that we essentially are for socialism, for our troops. Can do you have any insight into how we can kind of hold this double standard as to, how we can accept socialism in in one sense, but then not in another?
Dr. Vine:It's complicated, but I I think largely most people in the United States are unaware of, the lives of most people in the US military. It's actually a relatively small percentage of the country now that that is part of the US military or has a family member in the US military In the age since the end of the draft in the that was a feature of the war in Vietnam, smaller and smaller percentage of the country has been aware of life in the U. S. Military. And life on bases abroad is a complicated mix and indeed in in some ways it is a kind of socialist utopia where in exchange for their labor, military personnel and their family members benefit from an array of benefits, health care, basic pay, educational benefits, housing benefits.
Dr. Vine:Often the pay, especially those at the bottom end of the earning spectrum is is quite low when there are people in the US military who are on food stamps. So it's not it's far from from perfect. And life on bases abroad is is often a mix, and, you know, people often love going to bases in Italy or Germany or Japan or South Korea and feel like they benefit from the lifestyle there and seeing another country and indeed, who wouldn't want that opportunity? Many people do. And I think it's sad that in the United States, you have to join, unless you grow up extraordinarily wealthy, you have to join the US military to get opportunities like that.
Dr. Vine:The Peace Corps is, you know, a small fraction of the size of of the US military. But life on bases abroad is also very difficult for families. If you bring your families, if a member of the military brings their family, the family members have to leave their schools and their jobs in the United States. There are a lot of challenges that come with being deployed abroad. In other cases, family members aren't allowed to accompany their often their husband or father is deployed abroad and have to experience long term separation from a loved one.
Dr. Vine:People are separated from their communities and often while there are many benefits to bases abroad, the lifestyle is very cushy in many ways, recreational opportunities, and in addition to the kinds of benefits I outlined, they're often quite unhealthy places. There are very high rates of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance use, violence between family members. And we shouldn't really be surprised by this because while there is this array of benefits that are offered to people in the military, they are, of course, enlisted to engage in violence and to kill, whether they're in a war zone or not. This is a violent infrastructure. This is an infrastructure to commit acts of violence, and this is a violent atmosphere and in which people are living.
Dr. Vine:So it's a complicated picture, but it, I think as you were suggesting, offers a vision of the kind of, sort of, array of benefits that people in the United States could enjoy. And I think that the last thing I'll also say is that the infrastructure of 750 US bases abroad is really a microcosm of choices that elites have made since World War II. In other countries, elites and their, and and voters have built social welfare states since World War II. And other wealthy industrialized countries in Europe and Asia, and some other parts of the world, people have built social welfare states that have provided for people's health, for their housing, for their educational needs, for their food needs and other needs. In the United States, since World War II, elites have largely built a warfare state, not a welfare state.
Dr. Vine:That's why we don't have universal health care in the United States. That's why you need to join the military to get the kinds of benefits that other people in other countries take for granted as a basic right of being a citizen. In the United States, you need to join the military to get those benefits, rather than they're being extended to all people as they could and should be here in the United States.
Derek Kreider:I wanna go back to something that you said just a a few minutes ago when you're talking about other countries that have bases overseas. And, I think you said that the the second, largest overseas base holder is, Great Britain. And, that's interesting because, you know, Great Britain was, the land on which the sun never set. Right? They, they were very big colonizers, and, they had colonies all over the place.
Derek Kreider:And it seems like today in the US, we are a land where the sun doesn't set if you consider, army bases, you know, US territory all around the globe. So, but, yet, we don't own these territories, and maybe we don't extract resources to the the same extent, that they used to. We we kinda have a different, MO. So colonialism is a is a really dirty word today. And and we say that we're not an empire, we're not colonizing, and any of that kind of stuff.
Derek Kreider:Yet, your description of of a base nation, it kind of it seems to me that it uncovers that our military system is really just modern disguised form of colonialism. Could you explain how we've traded one form of colonialism for another? And, maybe I know you talk about Guam and Okinawa a lot or or, Diego Garcia. Could you just kind of give us paint us a picture of modern colonialism?
Dr. Vine:Yeah. Again, this is one of the ways in which I think the Chagosians helped change how I view the United States and and how I view the world and the place of the United States in the world. I grew up, you know, learning about the British Empire and the French Empire and the Egyptian and ancient Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, Chinese Empire of ancient times, and didn't see the United States as an empire. Indeed, the United States gained its independence by freeing itself from the British Empire. You saw the United States as fundamentally being a democracy since independence, which of course is far from the case.
Dr. Vine:And the extent to which the United States is a democracy today is is up for debate. But I think with the help of the Chagosians and research I've done since I met the Chagosians to investigate the collection of US bases abroad and a long series of US wars that have been enabled by US bases abroad, I've seen that really since independence, the United States was an empire. I mean, how did the United States get from a collection of 13 colonies that became states to occupying land across North America and then lands on islands and other parts of the world? You know, that process was disguised really in the 19th century as a sort of act of God, an act of manifest destiny, just a natural process. But that wasn't a natural process.
Dr. Vine:It was a process of conquest of colonization of foreign lands of violent conquest and colonization that took the lives of millions of Native American peoples and displaced and injured millions more. And this is what empires do. They expand and conquer territory and claim territory. And this process unfolded in the 19th century and by the end of 19th century, the United States had begun colonizing lands outside of North America. It was part of the 18/98 war with Spain, leading the United States to occupy and colonize Puerto Rico and Guam, the Philippines, and of course, to to occupy in a de facto colonial nature Cuba as well with the help of the base at Guantanamo Bay.
Dr. Vine:I mean, if you think about Guantanamo Bay, this also reveals that the United States, in a very formal sense, has colonies today. United States occupies Guantanamo Bay against the will of the Cuban people. Long before the Cuban revolution, the Cuban government wanted Guantanamo Bay back. Guantanamo Bay is sort of a microcolony, but we also have to think about, you know, these 50 states, you know, this is all colonized land, but think too about the places that so frequently are overlooked in the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, the American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U. S.
Dr. Vine:Virgin Islands, these are places that are in a fundamentally colonial relationship to the United States. They do not have voting representation in congress. They do not have the right to vote in U. S. Presidential elections.
Dr. Vine:They do not have full citizenship. It's a second, third, even third class citizenship. We can also throw Washington, D. C. Where I was born and where I teach as another kind of quasi colony.
Dr. Vine:People at least have the right to vote for president of the United States but do not have voting representation in Congress. So today, in addition to these colonies, it's important to see how many of the bases United States military occupies around the world are kind of microcolonies that allow the U. S. Government to exert power and influence far beyond the actual territory occupied. So that's why some people, scholars refer to the United States today as a kind of empire of basis that in the post World War II period, the United States changed as an empire and became an empire characterized by this huge unprecedented collection of foreign military bases.
Dr. Vine:Again, larger than any empire or people or country in world history. And, part of the reason I investigated the effects of all these bases and wrote my book Base Nation was to question something that since World War II is mostly gone unquestioned, the existence of so many US bases around the world. I think, you know, most people in the United States actually have some awareness that their US base is in Japan or Germany, for example. But rarely do they ask, wait. Why?
Dr. Vine:You know, now more than 75 years after the end of World War 2, are these bases still there? Are they protecting United States? Are they protecting Japan and Germany? Are these bases needed? It's become just an accepted part of US foreign policy that the United States would maintain so many bases abroad, when people really have not demonstrated that these bases are benefiting us in in any ways and when there are clear damage, there's clear damage being done of a whole range of kinds.
Dr. Vine:The last thing I'll I'll just say is that, again, the the the basic assumption is the United States needs to maintain, all these bases abroad to protect US national security. That has just been asserted by people in the mainstream foreign policy circles, by politicians, by elites. It's been asserted since World War 2 without providing any evidence. And when we look more closely, we see that these bases in a whole range of ways are counterproductive to protecting the United States. They're actually damaging the United States in a range of ways and you see people across the political spectrum coming to the same conclusion.
Dr. Vine:It's not just me, someone, you know, identifies as being on the left. There are people on the right who realize, wait a second, we could be spending our money in far better ways than investing, you know, $80,000,000,000 a year on bases abroad. And there are better ways to deploy the US military. Focusing on protecting the borders of the United States would actually be a far more advantageous way to protect US national security, in addition to a whole range of other ways in which US bases overseas are actually undermining the security and safety of the United States and its people.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. I can understand why people would be upset if they're, you know, if they're under the the heel of, colonialism, if they feel that way. And it it seems like we know that that's what we're doing too, because one of the things that you explore in your book is is the way that we kind of use language to, you know, manipulate manipulate, appearances. So, for example, you talk about lily pads. Why does what is a lily pad and why does the military use that term?
Dr. Vine:So a lily pad is a kind of small US military base overseas. These have become increasingly popular really since the turn of the century when US military personnel and US government officials were concerned about some of the opposition that bases abroad were generating protests like you see in Okinawa. You mentioned Okinawa. But there's been protests against U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military bases and U. S. Military presence since at least the 1950s, U. S. Military personnel and U.
Dr. Vine:S. Leaders began looking for small, isolated bases that would be insulated from protests and opposition. And, lily pads were one of the kinds of bases that serve this purpose. They tend to be much smaller than the huge city sized bases in Germany and Japan. These have a few 100 troops on them.
Dr. Vine:No family members and not as many of the amenities that you would find on the big bases. But they've allowed the US military to, exert power and influence, and the US government more broadly to exert power and influence in parts of the world where there wasn't formally a US military presence. Such as in large parts of Africa, especially North and East and West Africa. And the I'm sorry if you're getting some some noise from someone one of someone in my neighborhood is, but anyway, so LALIP had bases, are, as you pointed out, also a linguistic way to hide a US military presence. Sometimes, they're actually physically within, a foreign government's military base as in the Philippines.
Dr. Vine:And in a range of ways, US leaders have have used language to disguise the presence of U. S. Military forces abroad and basically to keep people in the United States ignorant of what the U. S. Military is doing around the world.
Dr. Vine:To keep them from asking the kinds of questions that we should be asking about what they're doing and whether it's benefiting anyone, including people in the United States.
Derek Kreider:And I guess at some points, the way that the linguistics work is you can functionally, they work functionally as well because if you label something not a base, then it doesn't it goes on a different budget item. Is that correct?
Dr. Vine:That's certainly one of the kinds of games that that that US military leaders have have played and and frequently, the it's part of why it's hard to have a precise figure of the total number of US bases abroad. Even the Pentagon doesn't know how many bases abroad it has. So but often, US leaders engage in intentional manipulation of language to hide or disguise the presence of the US military overseas. And this is one of the the challenges of of really getting a clearer sense of of the impact of the US military and the US war system around the world.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. Linguistics, fascinate me when you when you look at all the ways that they're they're used. I remember one of one of the interesting ones to me was, when I first found out that president Roosevelt in his day of infamy speech, he'd after, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you know, we we're familiar with the version that he gave, but, it went through a number of edits. And, you know, he he, more places than Hawaii were bombed. And Hawaii at that time was not a state.
Derek Kreider:It was a it was a territory, US territory. But, you know, the Philippines were bombed and, Guam and and other places were being attacked by Japan, and they had originally been included in this speech, but he kinda scratched them all out and said, you know, the American island of Oahu. And so, you know, instead of just saying Oahu or Hawaii, the American island. Right? So it it almost became a part of of us.
Derek Kreider:And I wonder, you know, I wonder if that's why it, it became a US state a little bit later because of, you know, that connection. But anyway, it's, you know, those linguistics are are really powerful in shaping and and politicians and people know that. But what's one of the things that I find fascinating is when you talked about Guam and you talk about all the people who, don't like the military bases there and kinda feel oppressed in a sense, and they don't have voting rights, They don't have the right to full citizens, yet they can join the US military. And you you said that I I don't think you gave a statistic, but you said that quite a number of people do. And that just made me think, you know, I forget, the author Ferrer Ferrer, the pedagogy of the oppressed, but it's a it's a famous book.
Derek Kreider:And, in it, he talks about how the oppressed often, kind of contributes to their own oppression and and kind of join in on on the system. Can you talk at all I don't know if you have any exposure to in Guam in particular, but why would so many people, join a military that they feel oppressed by? What what's going on in their minds? What has the military done? What does the US do to kind of incentivize that sort of thing?
Dr. Vine:It's complicated, but but economics play a really important role. I was lucky enough to visit Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. And after being introduced to the Chagosians again to to research my book, Base Nation, I wanted to see these bases around the world and and what impact they were having. So I went to Guam where there is indeed great support for the military by many, as well as growing opposition among many who are questioning whether the military presence there, which is quite substantial. It's really, I think around 25% of the island of Guam is occupied by the U.
Dr. Vine:S. Military currently. Try to imagine in your own community, 25% of the land occupied by the U. S. Military.
Dr. Vine:And, you know, it's been that way, more or less, since the United States seized and occupied Guam after the end of the war of 18/98 with Spain. And that war brought colonial occupation at the time U. S. Leaders proudly talked about these new colonies. Now, going back to the question of language, we, people tend to refer to Guam and Puerto Rico and American Samoa as territories but they're fundamentally in a colonial relationship with the United States and I think properly should be called colonies to reflect that colonial relationship.
Dr. Vine:And the attachment, the occupation by the United States has not tended to bring prosperity. The reason there are so many people from Guam in the U. S. Military and so many from American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands, among other places, is because there are so few economic opportunities. And, as in other parts of the United States, in the 50 states, the military is one way that people can feed themselves and ensure that they can feed themselves and their families and have a decent style of life, which then tends to lead to support for the institution itself that is the US military.
Derek Kreider:Well and I guess Does that help? One of one of the things in your book you talk about is that, on a lot of these military bases, the US actually has you know, they they bring in a lot of Filipinos and people from from other places to work. So if you're on Guam, I guess you either join the military and get all the benefits or you work for substandard pay at a military base. So either way, you're working for the military. If they take up 25% of your island, I mean, that's a lot of your jobs.
Dr. Vine:Indeed. Indeed. I, you know, there are some other jobs, but it is a hugely military dependent community. And then, you know, so you might say, this is great. But but, you know, what we see in Guam and elsewhere is that the military has not created thriving economic, opportunities.
Dr. Vine:It hasn't created thriving economies. And if you think about what military bases do, they take up large amounts of land and they don't really produce anything. So they're not a great basis for building an economy. And indeed, in many ways, have kept Guam and other places, economically depressed. But meanwhile, there are many people who are quite supportive of the military because their jobs come either directly or indirectly from the military presence.
Dr. Vine:At the same time, there are, as I said, a growing number of people in Guam and elsewhere who are increasingly protesting the U. S. Military presence. They are seeing how the military has damaged their land, literally damaged the local environment. They're seeing, you know, plans right now to build a military gun range on sacred lands of the ancestors of the local indigenous Chamorro people.
Dr. Vine:They're seeing the ways in which being a huge U. S. Military base actually makes you a target. So Guam is closer to China than, to Washington, DC, or most of the United States. And if there was ever any war between China and the United States, and we should hope that nothing remotely like a war between China and the United States ever happens, Guam would be in the crosshairs.
Dr. Vine:And people in Guam are increasingly aware of this. And right right now they're experiencing a buildup of US military forces. But this is not going to protect Guam. In fact, it's just making them more of a target, endangering and undermining their security and safety.
Derek Kreider:So another place, that you talk about is Diego Garcia. I mean and, I know that that's that's particularly close to your heart. And and you talk about how, the US military has harmed the Chagosians. So one of the one of the things that stuck out to me, in your story about them is the linguistic propaganda that that was kind of used in all of this to kind of shade what was going on differently. Maybe you could talk a little bit about, the the Chagosians.
Derek Kreider:I know you already did a little bit, maybe fill in a little bit more details and and talk about how they were labeled as migrant laborers and how that, you know, influenced perception of what the military was doing.
Dr. Vine:Sure. I think, you know, the Chagosian story is part of the construction of the US military base on Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Reals a lot about how the war system has worked and how the US government has worked especially since World War II and how US leaders have frequently lied to the American public and to the rest of the world. First of all, the Chagosians are also an example of the way in which U. S.
Dr. Vine:Bases abroad have harmed locals very directly by displacing them from their lands. In fact, I've been able to document more than 20 cases in which the U. S. Military has displaced local, mostly indigenous peoples around the world, since the end of 19th century as part of the construction or expansion of U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military facilities. So the Chagosians are sadly not unique and of course their displacement followed the late 18th century 19th century experience of Native American peoples in North America who of course were displaced by the millions from their lands as part of the colonial conquest of the U. S. Empire, expanding across North America. But the Chagosians, you know, is a kind of 19th century story of colonialism played out in the late 20th 21st century.
Dr. Vine:In the 19 fifties sixties, US military officials and other government officials identified Diego Garcia as a place they wanted to build a military base. And they wanted it without a local population. And they paid the British government £14,000,000 secretly in a way that, voided the oversight of congress and parliament. They paid the British government to do the dirty work of getting rid of the Chigossians. U.
Dr. Vine:S. Officials were very and British officials were very upfront about it. And they crafted a public relations strategy with the help of British officials to call the Chagosians migrant or transient laborers rather than the local native indigenous people that they knew them to be, that they had been living there for generations. They weren't migrant laborers, but this is how U. S.
Dr. Vine:Government officials represented the Chagosians when asked by members of congress and at the UN. And this is a way to hide what they were doing, displacing an indigenous people. And, again, sadly reflects the kind of lying that the US government officials engage in far too often.
Derek Kreider:And, correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know the history too much. I I remember you referenced the Bikini Atoll. Did we displace people from there too and basically move them off of that island?
Dr. Vine:Exactly. I'm glad you you asked about them. Yes. In the in the Marshall Islands, Bikini at the Bikini Atoll is probably the most well known island where the United States military engaged in nuclear testing after World War 2. And as part of that nuclear testing, at least 5, and perhaps more separate groups of people from different atolls, different groups of islands, were displaced from their lands, from their islands, entire islands, during nuclear testing.
Dr. Vine:And, you know, some of the other examples of local, again, mostly indigenous peoples who've been displaced include people in Hawaii, in parts of Guam, in Okinawa, some in Okinawa were displaced to Bolivia across the Pacific Ocean. In Puerto Rico, people were displaced from their lands. So sadly, the experience is far from unique. And like other people, the Chagosians are still struggling to get back to their homeland. The people of the Bikini Atoll and other islands in the Marshall Islands have been struggling to go back home as well and often to get proper compensation and I think these are struggles that we should want to support as a matter of basic justice.
Dr. Vine:Shouldn't we all have the right to live in our homeland? Why should some be displaced against their will, when others can live in the, the comfort of their homes? And really right there, I'm paraphrasing one of the Chagosian leaders, who's asked these basic questions. Why, you know, why do some get human rights and others not? Why do some get to live in their homelands and others not?
Dr. Vine:And he rightly asked whether it's a matter of race because all but one of the peoples who the U. S. Military has displaced since the late 19th century have been peoples of color. There's one case in Canada where locals were displaced during World War II but all the others were local, brown and black folks, indigenous peoples, displaced against their will and so I think that, using Olivia Bancou's insights, underlines the the racism that has been fundamental to the US military based system and to the larger war system.
Derek Kreider:Quick side question here because I don't know the answer to this, but as I was researching Diego Garcia a bit, and, it called it the footprint of freedom. Where does that name come from? Do you have any any idea?
Dr. Vine:It's a name that people in the US military, applied to Diego Garcia, and there are nicknames for many of the bases abroad, including Guam, which gets called the tip of the spear sometimes. But the saddest thing about footprint of freedom, I don't know when it first was applied to Diego Garcia, is just the awful irony that, you know, calling the space the footprint of freedom, means for the Chagosians. I mean, what kind of freedom do they have living in in exile, separated from their homelands and living, for the most part, in profound poverty? Meanwhile, it's, you know, the kind of propagandistic language, really, Orwellian language, because this island, this base has not provided freedom. Hasn't provided freedom for the United States.
Dr. Vine:It's been a launchpad for catastrophic wars. Catastrophic wars in Afghanistan, in Iraq, throughout the Middle East. Wars that have not provided freedom to anyone in the United States or around the world but, instead, have inflicted horrific damage to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where 100 of thousands of people have died at minimum. Likely the totals run into the millions while tens of millions have been injured, and millions have been displaced from their homes. This is freedom?
Dr. Vine:I I I don't think so.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. I wasn't I wasn't sure who named that. It wouldn't have been good either way no matter who named it, but, yeah, it feels it feels kind of like a slap in the face that, the US military named it the footprint of freedom. You know? Like, we'll we'll step on you, and we're we're okay with that cost if it if it means freedom for us.
Dr. Vine:Right. Very well put. Although, again, I think we need to question whether it has brought any freedom to people in the United States or the US military. And in fact, I would say the quite the opposite has been been the case.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. And that that perfectly leads us into the, the last section. I wanna to try to keep it, right about an hour. I'm gonna limit myself to the last two big questions that I wanna ask you. So we talked about, you know, the motive for for the military and the government to do what it does, and then we've largely focused on the linguistic aspect of of, kind of, how propaganda functions.
Derek Kreider:But, you know, in order to be able to to wield propaganda effectively, you know, Jacques Alul and a lot of other people who talk about, propaganda identify that, you know, you'd like all good salesman, you need to provide a need. And, a lot of times, fear is is the thing that you apply. You know, if if I can make you scared that you're not going to get something that you need, then you're susceptible to propaganda. Or if I can create a need that you think, that you don't really have, but I make you think you have it, and that only I can provide it. Yeah.
Derek Kreider:I can I can elicit fear in you, and you're gonna believe me as your savior? And so, you know, if you look across the world, the the US has, kind of espoused for the Middle East, we we talk about terrorism. And for South America, historically, we've talked about communism was big back in the day, but now it's drugs. We've talked about those two things as a result of fear, or or, to elicit fear in order to be the saviors. And, and that's allowed us to grow our bases, and our our military presence.
Derek Kreider:But like you said, you know, you think that this ends up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. And rather than bringing freedom, it actually, creates the problems that we've manufactured to to make people fear. Could you talk a little bit about the manufacturing of fear and how that's a a double edged sword or or a boomerang that ends up coming back to us?
Dr. Vine:I will do my best. Great great questions, complicated questions. But, indeed, what we've seen is US leaders have frequently justified the presence of US spaces abroad by pointing to supposed dangers. And what we've seen is that conveniently, there's been a rotating series of justifications and frequently it's moved as you pointed out from we have to protect against communism to the war on drugs to terrorism. And there's always, strangely enough, a justification, a reason.
Dr. Vine:And some of this is cynical manipulation by US officials who are seeking to get, you know, larger budgets for their part of the military or justify a large total U. S. Military budget, which just by the way people should know, the total Pentagon budget now is upwards of $1,000,000,000,000 a year, 1,000,000,000,000 dollars a year, which is really sort of inconceivable. And again, we need to think about what we're not spending that money on. But the the use of fear mongering is a long standing strategy, that dates especially to World War II and the inflation of the Soviet threat.
Dr. Vine:And in more recent years, in addition to the war on drugs and terrorism, of course, we've seen the inflation of the Russian threat, the Russian military threat and the Chinese military threat. These militaries are, in terms of capability and their funding, a small fraction of the size of the U. S. Military and meanwhile, they're portrayed as being these, existential threats and this, you know, serves the purpose of inflating U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military budgets, in ways that you mentioned the sort of self fulfilling nature of these dynamics. So one of my greatest fears is that, especially with China, for example, U. S. Military leaders and other elites, people think tanks and mainstream foreign policy circles, have for years been inflating the China threat and saying that we have to respond with more bases, with more military spending, with more military force. And, you know, how would the United States respond if China were to build even a single military base anywhere near the borders of the United States?
Dr. Vine:Again, the only foreign bases China has are in Djibouti, the East Coast of Africa, and some in the South China Sea on disputed islands. China has no bases anywhere near US borders. Meanwhile, the United States has encircled China with dozens of military bases, since World War 2 and an increasing number of bases in in in recent years. And more than a 100, not just dozens. If the shoe were on the other foot, US citizens, US leaders would be calling for a major military build up in response to the threat of Chinese bases near our borders.
Dr. Vine:So how do we expect China to respond if the US increases its military presence near their borders with bases, troops, with, the highest powered, often nuclear weaponry. This is creating and only encouraging the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government to build up its military forces and power, raising the likelihood of of a war, either through an accidental conflict or or or something that's not accidental. And, again, the idea of any conflict, any war between nuclear armed powers, should be unthinkable. But now the threat of war between the United States and both China and Russia is greater than it's been at any point, since the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s, which means that the threat of nuclear annihilation for entire human species is a greater threat than at any point since the 1960s. And this should alarm all of us to say the least and should mean that all of us do everything we can do to make the likelihood of any such war less and less likely, which means bringing down tensions and bringing down the kinds of military spending and US military buildup that has not made any of us safer, but instead is, again, made war more likely.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. I I think you actually do get a vision of, how we would respond with the Cuban missile crisis. You know, it it wasn't Russia exactly putting a base, in our hemisphere. But, you know, when when nuclear weapons were on Cuba, that's that's not fair, but we'll we'll have our, nuclear missiles in Turkey and aimed at you, Russia, right across the Black Sea, and that's that's perfectly legitimate.
Dr. Vine:Exactly. Well, yeah, it was a Russian missile base in in Cuba that was the inciting incident for the Cuban missile crisis. And and when thinking about the 750 US military bases in 80 foreign countries and colonies, again, I think it is helpful and I'm glad you brought up that case. I think it's helpful for people in the United States in particular to think, how would we feel if Russia or China had a military base anywhere near our borders, in, for example, Canada or Mexico? How would that feel?
Dr. Vine:Meanwhile, China and Russia are surrounded by literally hundreds of US military bases. Again, only encouraging them to respond militarily. This is not a way to ensure the safety and security of the world. This is a recipe for ramping up military tensions and making war more likely.
Derek Kreider:K. Last question for you. So so you can go as long or short as you want here. One of the things that was was preached to me from birth was that, you know, we're a democracy. I I have to vote.
Derek Kreider:My voice counts. And and you even brought up at the beginning, you know, that this this you said that, you know, whether or not we live in a democracy or how democratic it is is questionable, and I think that's gonna raise eyebrows for a lot of people. Because we're indoctrinated with this idea that our voice matters and and, we are a democracy. And it's something that we we preach as, like, a core value of what we are as the United States, and a lot of our wars are to, one of the points, one of the the goals is to bring democracy to other nations. We value it so much that we we will go and kill other people to make sure that, they have it.
Derek Kreider:Yet at the same time, you you look back through our history and, South America alone, all the coups and democratically elected officials that we overthrew, Iran, Middle East, a bunch of different places. Haiti, I know we've overthrown a a bunch of people. We we preach democracy, and in your book, you talk about Franco, how we kind of were were buddies with him and supported him. We support all kinds of dictators, and we overthrow democracies all over the place. Can you explain a little bit about how we have this double standard of preaching democracy and how that's used to garner support from from the populace for war, while simultaneously, we show that we don't really value democracy abroad.
Derek Kreider:And then kind of a follow-up, does that have implications for whether or not we truly value democracy at home?
Dr. Vine:Great questions. And I think, you know, look no further than the presence of US military bases in at least 38 less than democratic countries. US military bases are in at least 38 countries that are ruled by undemocratic regimes, often murderous dictatorial regimes, like regimes in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Persian Gulf, and some parts of Africa and Thailand. The United States and this has been the case since World War II. The United States has, by virtue of the presence of U.
Dr. Vine:S. Bases in undemocratic countries, helped prop up undemocratic regimes far from spreading democracy as sometimes been claimed. I think it's clear that the language of spreading democracy and supporting democracy has been a kind of propaganda, a kind of marketing. I mean, yes, there are some ways in which the U. S.
Dr. Vine:Government has supported the spread of democracy, mostly through, the activities of some of the activities of the U. S. State Department or the U. S. Agency For International Development, to some marginal extent, the Peace Corps.
Dr. Vine:But U. S. Foreign policy, U. S. Relations with the rest of the world are dominated by the military.
Dr. Vine:And this has brought not democracy, but instead, you know, really awful death and suffering through the wars that we have waged unnecessarily in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think most people in the United States have grappled just for the last now 21 years of war since the attacks of 911, the 911 wars, have brought a degree of suffering and death that I think most people in the United States, again, have no clue about. By my estimate, post 9 11 wars, the number just the 9 11 wars, first launched by George W Bush, but then, you know, continued by Obama, Trump, and Biden to a lesser extent, had probably taken the lives of around 4,500,000 people. 4,500,000 people in the war zones, including U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military personnel, but they're a small portion. 4,500,000 people. That's about the same as died in roughly 20 years of US led war in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. 4,500,000 people. Is that democracy?
Dr. Vine:War is fundamentally undemocratic, of course, and yes, we should question and reject the use of democracy as cover for imperial domination and imperial expansion, while also questioning the extent to which there is democracy at home, beginning with the colonies we've talked about where people don't have democratic rights or full democratic rights. And then, you know, in the U. S. States where people are having their basic right to vote stripped left and right, especially in Republican controlled states, especially people of color, African Americans in particular, who, in disproportionate ways, are being prevented from voting through a whole variety of mechanisms. And, of course, there are many other ways in which, the United States is not a full democracy.
Dr. Vine:But just starting there, we need to deeply question. Anytime you hear a politician or a leader or lead talking about the United States being a fountain of democracy at home or abroad, we should really pay even closer attention because they're probably lying to us.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. There's there's so much there. You know, mentioning Saudi Arabia. I I only, found out about the what was going on in Yemen may maybe a year ago. Like, that that's not plastered all over the news over here despite how huge the numbers of deaths and, you know, malnutrition and everything are because our friends are doing it, which also sheds some light, you know, when, the journalist, do you remember his name from Saudi Arabia who was killed?
Derek Kreider:Khashoggi?
Dr. Vine:Oh, exactly.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and they're you know, we didn't really slap them on the on the hand or anything. So what yeah.
Derek Kreider:When you understand who we're buddies with, it it really brings a lot of what you don't see in the media to light, but as well as what, what you do see, with with who we reprimand and who we fight and who we don't. So so understanding that there's a base, in, you know, in various countries is helpful. So
Dr. Vine:That that's why I think, you know, trying to expose this huge collection of bases and encourage people to question whether we need them, why they're there, what damage they're causing, whether there are better ways to protect the United States and people around the world, which I think clearly there are, to say the least, is important to encourage people to to call for the change. I guess I would just point to, for for people who are interested, I'm part of a group of people across the political spectrum who are questioning the huge collection of US bases abroad called the we have a coalition called the Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition, and people can learn more about it at overseasbases.net. Overseasbases.net. And my website, davidvine.netandbasenation.us, 2 websites, davidvine.netandbasenation.us, have information about this the war system and the collection of bases, but also, offers links to movements and organizations who are seeking urgently to change the status quo and ensure the United States, pursues a more peaceful path in the future, than the violent history of war that that that US leaders have have have pursued for decades and really since US independence.
Derek Kreider:Yeah. And you also have a a newer book out that, maybe you wanna plug and talk about, the US of War. What does that add to the the conversation here?
Dr. Vine:Yeah. Again, people can learn more about my my newest book, the United States of War, at my website, davidwein.net. But really, it uses, the lens of U. S. Military bases abroad that U.
Dr. Vine:S. Elites, U. S. Leaders have built since independence as a way to reveal how the United States, far from being a fountain of democracy and peace, has really been in a very fundamental way a United States of war, that war has been the norm in U. S.
Dr. Vine:History. There are actually only about 11 years in U. S. History when the U. S.
Dr. Vine:Military has not been engaged in a war or some other form of combat. The last 21 years of continuous war since 9/11 is not an aberration. It's the norm in U. S. History.
Dr. Vine:And these have not been defensive wars by and large. These have been wars of choice, offensive wars that have, led to 1,000,000 upon 1,000,000 of deaths and injuries numbering into the tens of 1,000,000, just mass displacement. This is what our country is in many ways. And this is why I am joining with others to try to urgently transform US foreign policy and the choices that our leaders make to make the United States a United States of Peace, not a United States of War.
Derek Kreider:Alright. Well, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate your insight and, your willingness to do this.
Dr. Vine:Derek, thanks for the great questions and the great conversation. I I really appreciate it.
Derek Kreider:Sure. That's all for now. So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom outpost network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and Kingdom living.
