FPIF Commentary |
Too Many Overseas Bases
David Vine | February 25, 2009
Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco
|
|
|
|
In the midst of an economic crisis that’s getting scarier by the day, it’s time to ask whether the nation can really afford some 1,000 military bases overseas. For those unfamiliar with the issue, you read that number correctly. One thousand. One thousand U.S. military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, DC, representing the largest collection of bases in world history.
Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, but this notoriously unreliable number omits all our bases in Iraq (likely over 100) and Afghanistan (80 and counting), among many other well-known and secretive bases. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — just to name a few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.
Unlike domestic bases, which set off local alarms when threatened by closure, our collection of overseas bases is particularly galling because almost all our taxpayer money leaves the United States (much goes to enriching private base contractors like corruption-plagued former Halliburton subsidiary KBR). One part of the massive Ramstein airbase near Landstuhl, Germany, has an estimated value of $3.3 billion. Just think how local communities could use that kind of money to make investments in schools, hospitals, jobs, and infrastructure.
Even the Bush administration saw the wastefulness of our overseas basing network. In 2004, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to close more than one-third of the nation’s overseas installations, moving 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians back to the United States. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, then commander of U.S. forces in Europe, called for closing 20% of our bases in Europe. According to Rumsfeld’s estimates, we could save at least $12 billion by closing 200 to 300 bases alone. While the closures were derailed by claims that closing bases could cost us in the short term, even if this is true, it’s no reason to continue our profligate ways in the longer term.
Costs Far Exceeding Dollars and Cents
Unfortunately, the financial costs of our overseas bases are only part of the problem. Other costs to people at home and abroad are just as devastating. Military families suffer painful dislocations as troops stationed overseas separate from loved ones or uproot their families through frequent moves around the world. While some foreign governments like U.S. bases for their perceived economic benefits, many locals living near the bases suffer environmental and health damage from military toxins and pollution, disrupted economic, social, and cultural systems, military accidents, and increased prostitution and crime.
In undemocratic nations like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Saudi Arabia, our bases support governments responsible for repression and human rights abuses. In too many recurring cases, soldiers have raped, assaulted, or killed locals, most prominently of late in South Korea, Okinawa, and Italy. The forced expulsion of the entire Chagossian people to create our secretive base on British Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is another extreme but not so aberrant example.
Bases abroad have become a major and unacknowledged “face” of the United States, frequently damaging the nation’s reputation, engendering grievances and anger, and generally creating antagonistic rather than cooperative relationships between the United States and others. Most dangerously, as we have seen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign bases create breeding grounds for radicalism, anti-Americanism, and attacks on the United States, reducing, rather than improving, our national security.
Proponents of maintaining the overseas base status quo will argue, however, that our foreign bases are critical to national and global security. A closer examination shows that overseas bases have often heightened military tensions and discouraged diplomatic solutions to international conflicts. Rather than stabilizing dangerous regions, our overseas bases have often increased global militarization, enlarging security threats faced by other nations who respond by boosting military spending (and in cases like China and Russia, foreign base acquisition) in an escalating spiral. Overseas bases actually make war more likely, not less.
The Benefits of Fewer Bases
This isn’t a call for isolationism or a protectionism that would prevent us from spending money overseas. As the Obama administration and others have recognized, we must recommit to cooperative forms of engagement with the rest of the world that rely on diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties rather than military means. In addition to freeing money to meet critical human needs at home and abroad, fewer overseas bases would help rebuild our military into a less overstretched, defensive force committed to defending the nation’s territory from attack.
In these difficult economic times, the Obama administration and Congress should initiate a major reassessment of our 1,000 overseas bases. Now is the time to ask if, as a nation and a world, we can really afford the 1,000 bases that are pushing the nation deeper into debt and making the United States and the planet less secure? With so many needs facing our nation, it’s unconscionable to have 1,000 overseas bases. It’s time to begin closing them.
David Vine, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at American University in Washington, DC and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, is organizing the Security Without Empire conference that will bring together leading U.S. peace activists and scholars, as well as base opponents from 11 nations from February 27-March 2. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press), to be released in April.
|
|
|
|
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
Recommended citation:
David Vine, "Too Many Overseas Bases," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 25, 2009).
Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/5903
Production Information:
Author(s): David Vine
Editor(s): Emily Schwartz Greco
Production: Jen Doak |
|
Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment.
Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not
corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are
rejected. |
| |
| Name: |
Cyrous Moradi |
Date: Feb 27, 2009 |
I totally disagree with the argument of the article about US bases in abroad:
1- Building military bases out of home is not some kind of economical investment that we can justify their closure by showing facts in Dollars and Cents. We need to elaborate other criteria than financial if it is need to survey their efficiency.
2- All super powers had overseas bases during their hey days. Still you can see the strong pillars of Roman bases in the banks of Mediterranean Sea (Roman Basin)
3- US military bases most of the times acts like stations to interactive with local people and most of the times these bases helps to build up good reputation for Washington more than sophisticated measures of State department. Although sometimes few disaster and scandals happen around these bases and the conduct of US Military boys.
4- As it is clear in this article, US bases in the non democratic countries is sign of Washington's support for these regimes. It doesn't mean that closure of these bases cut offs such support.
5-Golf courses are military tools like Roman hot bath and sauna rooms around the old world;
6- I think US new administration should consider the association of US military boys with the local communities. I know it is very difficult and there is no fellow chart for this end. If US bases around the world act like isolated islands from the local communities, it is better Washington considers their closure or some kind of their convergence to make few important bases around the hot spots. |
|
| Name: |
Lee |
Date: Feb 27, 2009 |
| We are always unwelcome until the host country is being over run by "bad guys", then we become welcome again. How many times have we seen this? |
|
| Name: |
Frank |
Date: Mar 03, 2009 |
| There are no where near this many 'bases" around the world. If you are counting "installations" which could be a 2 man site - then maybe. The fact that the headline is 1) flat wrong 2) inflamitory says that you cannot trust the rest of the information.
Should we close more bases - sure thing - but we need enough for staging areas in order to execute. That was our problem going into Afganistan - we did not have staging bases in theater.
Saying we have "1000" locations outside the US may have all the liberal anti - military know nothings shaking their heads and saying "what a waste" - but when we get hit with a missle because we closed one - or see our countrymen taken hostage - and no way to respond (Jimmy Carter and Iran) the same people will be saying "what is the government going to do about it" |
|
| Name: |
Guy |
Date: Mar 03, 2009 |
| One thing I do agree on - there are too many bases. I feel the "facts" as laid out may be a bit misleading. How many of those Iraq and Afghanistan bases are temporary 20-40 man forward operations bases - basically supply and safe haven for troops? As we pull back these simple fortifications go away. How many around the world are the same - just small presences? There are a lot of major installations, but bases like Ramstein shouldn't just be pieced out because the property is worth money. If that is the case, lets start dismantling the DC capital area and moving offices to low rent districts in DC. That would make billions for the government too.
Too many times we have been called upon to bail someone else out. We are a super power, does that mean we have responsibilities to the rest of the world or not? I wonder if isolationism is not such a bad thing, we pull back and let rest of the world solve their own problems. But then we would be villainized for not doing enough. We are in a lose-lose situation both at home and abroad. We are a country of immigrants - maybe the best mix of different peoples on the globe. Does that fact alone make us responsible to the rest of the world? Most say our "wealth" makes it so - like the tax structure in our own country. The more wealthy the more the load.
So what is the "correct" number of bases? What is the "correct" size of them? Ambiguous questions I am sure nobody has the correct answer for. |
|
| Name: |
Benjamin |
Date: Mar 03, 2009 |
| Interesting, but what counts as a "base"? We have massive airbases and installations to serve entire divisions, yes, but I bet a large number of the facilities identified as "bases" also counts things like a communication facility with a dozen sailors on a remote coast. I think a good way to put this in perspective is to ask the question "How many bases does the US military have at home?" If you count every National Guard armory and radar installation, it's probably a very large number.
You argue that deploying troops to overseas facilities disrupts families. Certainly so. But many of the larger bases allow for families to live on-base, as in Germany and Japan, and is often considered a perk.
You also argue that foriegn countries suffer from negative environmental and social effects from having a US base nearby. But your suggested remedy is to base those forces within the United States...where the pollution and prostitution would be on our home soil. I'm not saying we should ignore those problems because it isn't our country; we should treat the host country with respect and try as hard to ameliorate the negative effects as we would if the base was at home.
I think that overseas bases have had a lot of positive benefits historically that you're overlooking. It was the network of American military bases throughout western Europe that helped those nations, who had been fighting with each other on and off for 1500 years, learn to trust each other and cooperate - project that has resulted in the (peaceful) European Union. |
|
| Name: |
Jack |
Date: Mar 03, 2009 |
| I agree with the concept that the author puts forward, but as so many Lefties do, he carries it too far.
There is no question that a large number of bases could and should be eliminated, as long as they do not further the purposes for which they were originally intended. Bases in corrupt Muslim nations are there because these SOBs are subject to being overthrown by radical Muslims and the U.S. cannot afford to have that happen. Bases in FSU 'Stan' countries are there as a link to U.S. policy in the Middle East as well as Pakistan & Afghanistan.
Where bases should be cut back (not totally eliminated) are in places like Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, and Japan. If they are not cut back, then at a minimum those countries should be paying the bill to have American troops there protecting those countries. One has to deal with the world the way it is rather than the way we would like it to be. There are still a lot of very nasty people out there (think Iran, North Korea, and the other Osama) and the U.S. as The super power needs to lead the world in the fight against them. |
|
| Name: |
Phil Smith |
Date: Mar 04, 2009 |
Dear Mr. Vine,
Your piece while good at raising emotional appeal is fundamentally flawed because of one simple fact - many of the countries like Japan pay nearly all the cost of the bases.
In Japan it is cheaper to keep the troops there than in the US.
Nice try!
Whatever your personal vendetta against the bases, you need to get your facts straight before you write.
Acknowledge the facts of host country payments. |
|
| Name: |
Patrick |
Date: Mar 04, 2009 |
| I like the article as it appeals to many conservatives, liberals and people who think long term about saving money and national security (at least putting the work on the shoulders of other nations).
However I'm confused about your number counts; atleast 1,000 bases. Yet you go ahead and write off the number the pentagon has issued and provide little detail as to where your information was found. By the way, what constitutes a base???? Not that I'm picking on this article in particular what it would be nice if journalist were less vague and more particular about certain information. |
|
| Name: |
The downfall |
Date: Mar 06, 2009 |
| American over-seas bases will close by themselves as time goes by and America succumb to financial bankruptcy and third World status, thanks to the fifth column in our midst. |
|
| Name: |
Brown |
Date: Mar 07, 2009 |
| And how is that our problem? I think it's time we take care of the US for a while. |
|
| Name: |
yoho |
Date: Mar 08, 2009 |
| I recall a famous person of our past said, we should "walk softly and carry a big stick" I agree, let some other fools police the world... we should all come home, we can't even feed our own much less provide jobs. It is highly possible that we are hated because of our being there (duh!)...it isn't about their government (foreign governments are just as corrupt and greedy as ours)... its the people we should care about (think about children).
Close all the bases...lets finally, really come home. We had no business in Vietnam, no business in the Gulf War, we have no business in Afghanistan or Iraq...These were and are all lies, Follow the money!!!!
War is still a racket, read Smedly Butler, (War is a Racket) and wake up. We are disliked because we are pompous, foolish and damned greedy. Haven't we enough to do here at home? and the old adage of we must defend ourselves is foolish thinking. "We have found the enemy and it is us". We are and have been the bad guys for too long...hang up the guns, come home and lets get on with living. Our children are not educated, they are tested..not taught. We have a future to consider, a future without terror, fear or made up enemies. |
|
| Name: |
Mike |
Date: Mar 09, 2009 |
| I find the article concerning the number of bases in Japan a bit high. I would like to know where they are. A note to mention is this - all U.S. military facilities in Japan, including Okinawa are not paid for by the U.S. The host nation, Japan covers the total cost of facilities, which are built by the Government of Japan (GOJ), 80% of the utilities paid by GOJ, the GOJ also pays the salaries for all Master Labor Contractors (MLCs) or the local Japanese and other nationals who obtained a position through the GOJ. These MLCs are the employees that work for and support the U.S. presence here at all U.S. military facilties. Again, Japan pays their salary and they work for us. Yes, the U.S. does pay my salary as well as all other U.S. employees whether Civil Service or military. Over the past 50 or so years, a significant number of U.S. military facilities in Japan and Okinawa have been closed, many converted for use by the Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF). So perhaps the number 124 was the number from many many years ago. Now, no way... |
|
| Name: |
farang |
Date: Mar 09, 2009 |
| Yes Lee,
We will always be "welcome" in Iraq, where our "liberation" had killed over 1 million innocents. You state that "we are always unwelcome until the hist country is overrun by the 'bad guys', then we become welcome again. How many times have we seen this?"
Um, NEVER, that's "how many times." Got ONE example of this, Lee?
In Republic of Korea, I have witnessed first hand how the US teenagers/troops treat the locals of a country that has always been our ALLY. And gee Lee, so "the Mediterranean Sea (Roman Basin) still has Roman artifacts, so this justifies overseas bases for America...what?Z Ever occur to you that there is no Roman "super power" anymore because of the cost the Roman citizens bore trying to maintain these far-flung military bases????
Hello? |
|
| Name: |
Bill Bradshaw |
Date: Mar 10, 2009 |
| Those are not American Bases. They are Zionist (Khazar Jewish) bases! You ordinary Americans simply provide the cannon fodder and political justification for the corporate flag (gold fringed) behind which the New York Bankster plotters hide.
Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Georgia. What have these locations got to do with America people and the security of the American Republic? But, there is no question these very countries do obsess those in Tel Aviv.
Why is Germany still a military colony of the USA, a full 64 years after its surrender? Why did a German shipyard recently build a state-of-the-art electric submarine for Israel at zero cost? Same reasons as above ++ a certain minority's enduring hatred for ethnic Germans and German culture.
Sociopaths took over your power base at least two decades ago, whilst you supped Buddweiser, chewed pop-corn, watched pro-football, and swallowed the CNN pills. |
|
| Name: |
Michael |
Date: Mar 10, 2009 |
| When I was in the Coast Guard,1956-64, we used to say that the Air Force and Army's budget for golf courses was probably a lot more than the entire Coast Guard budget. Not much as changed in the interval. |
|
| Name: |
Richard |
Date: Mar 10, 2009 |
| On what basis would one want to justify the cost of this expenditure? And, while we're at it, on what basis would one want to justify the large army that we have in the first place?
To protect America? My guess is we can do that with our National Guard, Air Force and Navy. Certainly a few naval bases overseas and air bases can be justified, but I fail to see why we need our army protecting foreign nations. That's not our job. (I know this is a radical idea to some who think it is the job of America to bankrupt itself in order to keep other countries stable so that they can take our jobs via so-called free trade).
So, I'll answer my own question. We have bases overseas because our citizens obviously do not mind the bankrupting of our country caused by the excessive military expenditures, nor the loss of jobs that it costs.
But it's evident that we can't afford this anymore, unless, we cut spending here in America on American projects for Americans, which some (unbelievable as this may be) seem to advocate.
So, if we can't support our large military garrisons, then they will be cut one way or the other. I suspect the best way would be to do it voluntarily, rather than have it forced on us.
And if Japan has the money to pay for our soldiers, let them get their own and pay for their own to protect Japan. After all, whose responsibility is it to protect Japan? My guess is it's the responsibility of the Japanese, and it's our responsibility to bring our troops home to protect America, although I admit we've had well over 50 years of propaganda in this country that it is our job to protect foreign nations no matter what the cost. |
|
| Name: |
Joe |
Date: Apr 04, 2009 |
| IT'S time to go home, you simply can't afford it any more. You wan't more men in the Ghan then get out of those bases and send them there. All that equipment, high tech etc. dosn't seem to have been enough. |
|
| Name: |
violetta |
Date: Apr 19, 2009 |
| the main reason for your overseas bases are not private companies but donation of host countries. Japan gives salaries to all civile employes at Okinawa bases. Germany pays salaries and reconsctuctions-updates etc. you appear as social case on Global level. |
|
| Name: |
Harry |
Date: Aug 15, 2009 |
| The Russians Moved out of Germany Romania & Hungery wich invaded their Nation & caused the death of millions. Many of their ruled Nations were given their freedom and no occupation. We now party with many of those country's Give them milatary support as well. What A shame.com. |
|
| Name: |
Francis |
Date: Sep 16, 2009 |
| It is high time the US gave a human face to her foreign policy. Close those bases and get involved in helping poor nations to also attain a reasonable standard of living for their populations. That way the US will win hearts and minds of all peoples and in the longer term international terrorism and other threats will be no more. |
|
| Name: |
mikey |
Date: Oct 18, 2009 |
| i was stationed on one of these bases in Italy. honestly, we are wasting money there. logistically, the bases in Europe are a waste. the locals are hostile but not when money is involved. the leech on our taxpayers. for example in Italy, a local national hired gets paid three times more that an American hired there. also, they can't be fired. the local businesses such as real estate charge the american 2 times more rent than the italian. |
|
| |
| You may add a new comment here. It will not appear on this page until it has been approved by the moderator. |
| |
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
|
|
|
|
