Location, Location, Location

"The point is, Ladies and Gentlemen, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good."

This phrase, though seemingly obvious, was first introduced to us by Michael Douglas' character Gordon Grekko in the 1987 flick Wall Street . It must have caught the attention of US policymakers, as this seems to be the guiding philosophy of where to place our military.

In an excerpt from "Being 'Over There'", Col. Daniel Smith explains how we go where the resources lead us. Since becoming a global superpower, the United States has forced its military into every country that offers some resource or benefit. Forget whether or not the country is our enemy or our ally, we'll find some excuse to be where the resources, notably oil in recent years, tend to be.

As Smith points out, "the Pentagon hopes that its plan, the Global Posture Review, when fully implemented, will allow for rapid, tailored responses to contingencies that could arise from any one of a number of 'vital national security interests. ... [O]nly two of these circumstances are paramount: countering any new outbreaks in the 'global war on terror' ... and reliable access to energy resources."

Despite the tragedy that unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration knew they had to take military action against whoever was responsible -- even if they weren't sure who that was at the time. So why not go where the oil is -- we're running out, the possibility of drilling in Alaska is controversial, and it will help us. It's not hard to follow the administration's logic -- it does make sense.

But that doesn't necessarily make it right. According to the 2003 Defense Department's "Base Structure Report" lists 702 foreign bases owned or leased by the Pentagon, with about 6,000 more installations in the U.S. and its possessions.

While this may feign political security that covers the administration's asses in many peoples' eyes, for the most part, all it does is piss the rest of the world off. We're seen as arrogant, ignorant and too aggressive. It may seem like a good strategy, but I fear it will come back to bite us in the ass eventually.

Invading peoples' space, placing permanent military bases down the street from their homes, flexing the intimidation muscle; these things tend to piss people off. And frankly, I can't blame them.

Corporate Corruption?

The first rule of the Corporate Army is you do not talk about the Corporate Army.

The second rule of the Corporate Army is you do not talk about the Corporate Army.

It may seem obvious to draw connections between the military and the underground boxing group first described in Chuck Palahniuk's novel Fight Club (yes, it's a book. It was a book first and if you haven't read it, you should. It's better than the movie — and I'm saying that as a fan of the movie).

Both have violence in a somewhat autonomous and controlled setting. Both have their own rules and secrets. But what political analyst and scholar Peter W. Singer suggests — that the industrial and corporate side of the military is not only secretive, but destructive as well — may not seem as apparent to most.

In his first book "Corporate Warriors," Singer states that "the idea of private businesses as viable and legitimate military actors has also begun to gain credence among a growing number of political analysts and officials, from all over the political spectrum. ... [A]lthough numerous newspaper and magazine articles have been written on the activities of such firms, most have been long on jingoistic headlines and short on earnest examination."

Now, I'm a bit of a skeptic, so my first reaction was to question the legitimacy of his argument. Initially, I wanted to write him off as another pestilent, self-proclaimed "know-it-all" who was simply in love with the sound of his own voice and his own argument.

Rule Number 3: If someone says 'stop', goes limp or taps out (hint, hint, Mr. Singer), the fight is over.

But as I did further research, I came to realize that he was right — at least to some degree. Certain organizations that have helped privatize military operations are very secretive about their operations. It seems Singer wants to take anyone and everyone who works as what he calls a 'corporate warrior'.

Remember Rule Number 4 though, Mr. Singer: Only two guys to a fight.

He accuses several military-based corporations as appearing disconnected, but being more intimately connected to the military than they appear at face value. He claims the firms' leaders are knowingly and deliberately blocking efforts to expose them. But would the Colonel give up his secret fried chicken recipe if someone invented a fanatical conspiracy theory? More than likely not.

But, as Rule Number 5 says, let's take one fight at a time, fellas.

Additionally, while the media has done a somewhat mediocre job at exposing and criticizing the privatization of military operations, as Singer points out, FOIA forms can only get you so far (take it from a journalist-in-training who's spent too many hours filing said forms and still ending up empty handed). It is hardly fair to pretend the media is ignoring their responsibilities as journalists when legal, legit roadblocks are thrown in their way. Singer just needs someone to blame.

Though Singer brings up some interesting points, I think his argument falls flat. Obviously the information is out there if Singer is able to draw up such detailed facts and accounts. Certainly, he had to do his research, and it might have taken more time than most are willing to donate to the subject, but it is still available. And while the supposed evils of the corporate army may not dominate the headlines or make front page news, that does not mean they are not being explored by reporters. Do no insult us, Mr. Singer.

Shirt and shoes are off now (It's Rule Number 6 in this bizarre game).

It is unfair to make the media the scapegoat in this scenario simply because you are one of the few people interested by this topic and one of the few to allow your paranoid delusions to make such grandiose and unsubstantiated claims.

Even if newspapers and magazines began delving into the issue, and pushing the content towards the prominence of the front page, what difference would it make? The print journalism world as we know it is shrinking at an increasingly alarming rate, as is the attention span of the average American. Furthermore, Americans (and many people in the rest of the world) are growing increasingly apathetic towards political affairs and international relations. War is old news to us by now. Another car bombing? We'll shrug it off. We're attacking some other city I can't pronounce? Eh. It's a sad, harsh truth, but the general public doesn't care about things like this, and to some extent I'm not sure they need to right now.

But even if Singer is right and his arguments are legit, Rule Number 7 is fights will go on as long as they have to.


My guess? Singer will keep spouting his conspiracy theories about the villainous corporations and their evil plots to take over the world until he's confronted by the groups themselves. And if and when they finally do decide to respond ...

It'll be their first night, and according to Rule Number 8, they'll have to fight.