U.S. Military Bases Abroad

The subject of U.S. military bases overseas has been at the forefront of international geopolitics for several decades, sparking vigorous debates about their role and impact. The United States maintains close to 800 military bases in over 70 countries and territories abroad. The United States’ global military presence, the extent of which is unparalleled in human history, raises fundamental questions about its implications for both American and global security. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the various viewpoints concerning the strategic value and potential liabilities of these bases.

Historical Context

The expansion of U.S. military bases beyond American borders was primarily driven by the exigencies of World War II and the ensuing Cold War. As highlighted by David Vine, a professor of anthropology at American University, in his book 'Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World', the United States established a network of bases to combat the Axis Powers during WWII (1). These bases, extending from Europe to the Pacific, subsequently morphed into bulwarks against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, serving as instrumental nodes in a global strategy of containment (1).

However, the post-Cold War period did not see a significant reduction in the U.S.'s overseas military footprint, as some predicted. Instead, new bases were established, while older ones were reoriented towards new strategic challenges, most notably terrorism and the rise of China as a potential superpower.

Strategic Assets

Proponents of overseas U.S. military bases argue they offer significant strategic advantages.

Global Power Projection: The United States can project its military power globally due to the strategic locations of these bases. The military bases in Diego Garcia and Guam, for instance, have served as critical logistics hubs for operations in the Middle East and Asia (2). During the Gulf Wars, bases in Germany, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia played crucial roles in deploying U.S. forces rapidly and effectively (2).

Deterrence: The presence of U.S. military bases acts as a deterrent to adversarial nations. Approximately 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea, for instance, play a vital role in deterring North Korean aggression (3). Similarly, the bases in Eastern Europe, like those in Poland and the Baltic states, are aimed at deterring Russian revanchism (4).

Diplomatic Relations and Cooperation: The bases often facilitate diplomatic relations and cooperation with host countries. NATO's strategic framework, which heavily relies on American bases in member countries, exemplifies this mutual benefit. These bases not only reinforce the collective defense principle but also promote interoperability between U.S. forces and those of allied nations (4).

Liabilities

Despite these strategic advantages, critics argue that these overseas military bases may constitute more of a liability than an asset.

Financial Burden: Perhaps the most immediate issue is the financial cost. According to the Department of Defense's Base Structure Report of 2018, overseas bases cost taxpayers approximately $25 billion annually, excluding war-related costs (5). Critics argue this is a hefty price to pay, especially when the United States grapples with significant domestic challenges like healthcare, infrastructure renewal, and education funding.

Anti-American Sentiment: Military bases can also foster anti-American sentiment due to social disruptions. In Okinawa, Japan, locals have long protested against the U.S. bases due to noise, crime, and pollution associated with their presence (6). Such protests and the attendant anti-American sentiment can undermine U.S. soft power and strain diplomatic ties with important allies.

Security Dilemmas and Over-Reliance: Some critics argue that bases abroad can create perverse security incentives. Countries like Japan and Germany may under-invest in their defense, overly relying on the U.S. security umbrella. If that security guarantee were to be questioned or rescinded, it could potentially lead to regional destabilization (7). Conversely, the presence of U.S. bases can incite adversarial nations, leading to an escalation in tensions or triggering security dilemmas. The U.S.-Iran tensions around the Persian Gulf serve as a case in point (8).

Towards a Balanced Approach

Given the divergent perspectives, a balanced approach might be the most prudent path forward. Such an approach could involve conducting a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of each overseas base, factoring in both its strategic value and potential liabilities. Such an approach has been recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission (9).

Further, to mitigate the potential negatives of these bases, the U.S. could consider implementing stricter environmental regulations, stronger measures to prevent crimes by military personnel, and more robust engagement with local communities.

Finally, in conjunction with these bases, the U.S. should continue to emphasize diplomacy and multilateral institutions. This would ensure the bases serve not merely as platforms for unilateral American power projection but as hubs for international cooperation and shared security.

Conclusion

The debate on whether U.S. military bases abroad are strategic assets or liabilities is not one-dimensional, and there are substantive arguments on both sides of the ledger. They undeniably offer significant strategic advantages, but these benefits come with potentially high costs and risks. By adopting a more balanced and nuanced approach, the United States could maximize the strategic benefits of these bases while minimizing their associated costs and risks. Ultimately, these bases should be leveraged in a manner that promotes international security, fosters cooperation, and respects the rights and interests of host nations.

References:

(1) Vine, D. (2015). Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. Metropolitan Books.

(2) Posen, B. R. (2018). Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell University Press.

(3) United States Forces Korea. (2021). 'U.S. Forces Korea > Resources > Command Information > USFK History'.

(4) NATO. (2021). 'Relations with the United States'.

(5) Department of Defense. (2018). 'Fiscal Year 2018 Base Structure Report'.

(6) Mitchell, J. (2015). 'Island of Discontent'. Foreign Policy.

(7) Glaser, C. L. (2011). 'Will China's Rise Lead to War?'. Foreign Affairs.

(8) Burns, R., & Lederer, E. (2019). 'US to send more troops to the Middle East'. Associated Press.

(9) National Defense Strategy Commission. (2018). 'Providing for the Common Defense: The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission'.