An Empire of Bases

How many bases from foreign countries are in the United States? How many bases from the United States are in foreign countries?

The US has more than 700 military bases around the world, and it seems we are under the sense that this is almost natural. That, of course this is how it should be But what country of sovereignty allows the military base of another country to be within it's borders?

The US move to imperialism may seem like the new-found policy of the last few years or decades, but it has been the policy of our nation ever since the beginning. Ever since the Manifest Destiny, which was the removal via genocide of the American Indians, and the conquest of Northern Mexico grossly misrepresented as par war, part purchase, and part capitulation.

It is remarkable how we have lived so long and seen ourselves as anything else. It is a testament to how well our sense of things can be turned to suit whoever wishes to do so. But when you see our bases and recognize the implications of 1) having a military base and 2) having a military base in another persons country, you will see the real picture of a global takeover.

Have you ever asked yourself why the US must police the world, and why other countries couldn't jump in and help us out? The reason is because we are not roving police, but roving soldiers that are not enforcing peace but maintaining conquered territory. Every good will act, including Kosovo and the like, was an act of imperialism most basically seen in the expression, "They come, but they don't leave."

We aren't meant to leave Iraq or the Middle East. Never have and never will.



[video=youtube;5vxlFuTcUQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxlFuTcUQc[/video]

 

Why hasn't the United Nations stepped in to halt global conflicts? Why hasn't two of its most important members, Russia (the Soviet Union) and China ever lifted their fingers to help?

Most other countries are too lazy and cowardly to step to help out with global justice. Countries like Mexico, with millions of disposable young men to feed into combat, have never done anything to help the cause. Poverty is no excuse, as the UN will foot the bill on logistics.

Since the UN is so worthless, as are most other countries and leaders worldwide, the US has to take up the slack. And bases are needed for this purpose.

 

Of the 700-odd bases, only as few are more than "lily pads" - provisional bases with no permanent tenants. Just a few local caretakers. A tleast half of the others (notably Ramstein, South Korea, and Okinawa) are economical subsidized by the host nations.

If needed, the lily pads can enlarge as necessary.

Not police the world. Simply confronting potential rivals as far from the US homeland as possible. This is merely good strategy.

 

The UN is the speakerbox for the United States. The UN has no power other than what other countries are willing to give it, and most countries do not have any power over the five leading countries, which head the security council. When you are talking about what the UN has done, you are not addressing the UN, you are addressing five of the global powers in the world. If they don't want it done, it likely won't happen.

The US does not intervene in anything on behalf of anyone other then itself. You can name anything, and it can easily be traced back to US interests. ANYTHING.

You misunderstand the use of bases. The fact that it is there in any capacity is enough, but bases aren't meant to be fully manned. They simply provide the means of secure and rapid escalation of force should the situation require it. It is a point where the US can gather it's forces and project them as it wills. When it is not in this sate, much like a castle, it serves as a symbol to all who see it of an American presence of force. American bases around the world mean omni-presence.

But you are certainly right. They are there to confront rivals. But, wait, confront rivals everywhere? Huh? The US has rivals all over the world that it needs to confront militarily? Not diplomatically? The equivalent of always having a gun trained on "potential rivals", whoever they may be.

But not only that, why are there no foreign bases in the US? It it's such a good strategy, why are there no bases from Britain in the US. I think we have to defend ourselves from the enemies we create. But none of this says why a country allows another country to set up bases in their country- exclusively the United States.

 

I UN is unworkable, and bascially useless. A bad idea to have society made up of opposing ideologies. The UN should be dissolved.

The US gives billions in aid to many countries, like most in Africa, and Haiti that do us no real good, and get no return on the money. Most of the time it is for "goodwill" hoping the leaders and people there do something more positive.

If you don't like all bad things going on in the world, you and your liberal buddies can form your own military reaction force, go into hot spots in the 3rd world and bring Hope and Change.

 

That's a bad idea for your logic and your reasoning and your right, but the UN wasn't made to help people. The UN kind of makes an international court out of the world, and it doesn't matter about the opposing ideologies because they are all meant to be administered by the leading members of the UN. By creating a club you control, you have gained a measure of independent leverage.

On anything of meaning, don't expect the UN to conflict with the US. They can voice opposition, but they will not oppose.

The US didn't give billions in aid to the African people, but parties of interest, and you could call that purchasing a little wiggle room.

But last, I am not a Liberal and don't insult me with your cartoonish polarization. The problem of the third world is usually strong countries and the entire problem can usually be summed up in exploitation. Of course I can't form an army. I can only voice my opinion and hope someone listens. But I always come up against people like you who appear to sit on their heads, and speak from the cheek.

 

"...always having a gun trained on "potential rivals", whoever they may be."

Taxcutter says:
Sounds like a good strategy.


The closure of Clark AFB (just before Mt. Pinotubo buried it under 800 feet of pumice) and Subic Bay prove one thing: All a host country has to do to get the US to leave is to say the magic words.

Since the closure of Clark and Subic, nobody has. Wonder why?

 

It depends on who you call "rivals". A bank robber levels his gun in the same way during a robbery. Also a good strategy. But is it good when placed ino context with the overall situation?

 

It's closer to 725 military bases outside the U.S., and I agree that's far too many to sustain. The Roman Empire suffered the same fate of over expansion. More often than not the government throws money Tax dollars) at the host nation to keep the base open and functioning. With the advent of floating bases in the form of aircraft carriers and the support ships, coupled with advances in air to air refueling...there is no pressing need to land bases so numerous. The U.S. can still maintain a sphere of influence without the cost associated with the vast swath of land bases. This kind of a simplistic response to a complex
geo-political problem...but hopefully I've presented the gist of my argument in support of closing many of these military bases we currently maintain outside the U.S.

Learn from the Romans or be doomed to share the same fate.

 

Those bases might never close. The problem with aircraft carriers is that they must reclaim positions on the land if they are called into service. Bases that are already present already have that land available.

I can't pretend to know the exact functions of the bases, though, but my key motive in questioning them is that just as the US would NEVER allow ANY ally to have a base inside of it's borders not subject to it's laws, it proves difficult for me to think of a good reason why another nation would allow it. To me, they did not allow it. They likely did not have a choice, one way or the other.

But this is speculation.

 

The Marine Corps and elements of the Army, 82nd airborne for example deploy quickly...from CONUS bases to anywhere in the World in 72 hours for spot fire type conflicts.

 

Is that Sigonella? I know that is also a well-positioned base as well.

Well, like I said, I don't know the exact purpose of those bases. I know the Us doesn't decom them. They operate on skeleton crews, of course, but they operate. I think I'll look into it a little more, as much as such a thing is possible.

 

CONUS = Continental United States aka lower 48.

Expand the quickly deployable strike forces, shrink the foreign based support elements and get out of the business of occupying nations that are no more than money pits. Accept the reality it's an untidy Middle East and focus the attention on genuine threats like China. Our Navy can handle the ChiComs.

 

Because unlike the USA those allies typically have mean neighbors who are more powerful than they are and want the US base there as a tripwire to ensure US involvement in any conflict, which very few world leaders really want.

We don't impose imperialism. We offer protection to those who ask for it.

The Saudi King wasn't forced by the USA to accept bases, he asked for them.

We don't force anyone to do anything except to have peaceful relations with neighbors, we may buy off some countries, and threaten others but the goal is the same.

Global Stability in the name of globalized free trade.

 

Of course.

 

And this is often the case. Very specifically for Navy and Air Force bases, which is often just a terminal on an existing Airport or Naval Port. Most times what is there is exactly that, just a small detachment who handles things when ships or aircraft do arrive. For example, look at all the detachments all over the world of the Air Mobility Command (formerly the Military Airlift Command). They have detachments in airports all over the world, from Los Angeles and San Francisco to Spain, Germany and Iceland. But these are normally just 10-20 person operations, who mostly deal with getting military members flying from one place to another seats on aircraft. I would hardly call that a "military presence".

And a great many others are actually "Joint Operations Bases". For example, all of those on NATO countries. These are not just US bases, but bases for all members of NATO. We share bases in countries from the UK and Germany to Italy, Turkey and the Indian Ocean. And quite often, the US is a very minor presence on those bases.

And it is not just NATO. 3 of the largest bases in the Middle East are in Qatar. And in all 3 circumstances, the US is just a tennant on a Qatari military base. Those are their bases, they existed before the US was asked to move into them, and will be there long after the US leaves.

And other times, it is because of treaties with the host governments. Japan, Kuwait and Qatar are good examples of this. Either the countries are unable to build enough of a military to defend themselves (generally due to a low population and much larger neighbors), or because the nation essentially pays the US to protect them for other reasons (Japan, which by it's own Constitution is not allowed to have a strong military force).

But we generally keep our military bases in a loose state of mobilization, and with sufficient warning can leave without to much trouble. For example, look at the Philippines. We were there for over 100 years, but when asked to leave, we left. Closed every single base on the islands and abandoned them.

And ironically, we are now in the process of reopening some of those very bases we left 20 years ago, because the Philippines realize that they live in a dangerous area of the world, and don't have enough forces to protect themselves without help.

Bases like that are not really military outposts at all, but political ones. And if you are a smaller nation with a potentially hostile neighbor, this makes a lot of sense. China has shown it has little problem with attacking and either taking over a weaker neighbor, or attempting it. But if there is a military base there from another country like the US, Russia or UK, they are going to think twice. Because each of those nations will treat an attack on that base as an attack on their own country.

In fact, recently Russia is finally starting to get serious about re-opening and expanding their own network of overseas bases (all of the old ones were closed after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Both Cuba and Vietnam, as well as the island republic of Seychelles are talking with them for opening Russian naval bases in their countries (Cuba will reopen old Soviet submarine support bases, Vietnam for the old US then Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay).

However, I do not see any of these as a threat. So I fail to see why other people see the majority of US bases as threats. All the host country has to do is ask the US to leave if they are not wanted anymore.

Oh yea, and the UN is a real speakerbox for the US. That is why the General Council and the Security Council always do whatever the US asks, right?

 

Oh yeah, you know all about it. They must disclose all types of things to you. What's your clearance?

 

Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, and 70 years after WW2 we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea.(*)Others are scattered around the globe...In Afghanistan about 80 bases. There's already been a major restructuring and closure of bases under Bush-2 referred to as BRAC. I'll have to agree to disagree with these other posters who readily dismiss the global web of U.S. as mere outposts. The very presence of U.S. personnel on foreign land incites radicalized anti-American sentiments. We're supporting regimes with notorious human rights violations like Saudi Arabia. We're not protecting American interests, we're protecting corporate interests...America is essentially a business.

 

A lot of people have said that. Eisenhower said it. FDR said it. John f Kennedy said it. And those are 3 presidents. Of course, people will accuse them of being anti-American.

Smedley Butler said it best. "War is a racket". I don' think a person can honestly believe we are still fighting overseas for anything else.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Don't you realize that "corporate" interests are YOUR interests? Stop acting like you can live without corporations in the globalized world.

Without corporations you and everyone else would be living in rags and animal skins.

 

Actually, it's SECRET, if you wanna know. 15 years and still serving. But as I have said many times, I am very careful about it, and never say anything that can't be referenced from independent and open sources. But feel free to check the things I stated, they are all avaliable pretty easily.

What's yours?

Yea, but what is a "base"?

Those "bases" are pretty much anything that is administered by the military. Including the Edelweiss Lodge & Resort, 50 miles from Munich. And one of those in Japan is the Okuma Beach Resort, at least 30 miles from any military facilities, it is a small recreation area for the members of the military and their families.

In pretty much every country, there are a lot of "military facilities" that are considered "base sites", but are not really "bases". Often times this includes hospitals and medical clinics, and can be anything else from a picnic area or military cemetary to a fuel depot.

 

Uh-huh. Ike, who created the largest Civil Works project in history to support the military. And the 2 Presidents more then any other until Reagan to expand the military, both in countries, size, and the conflicts they were involved in. Sorry, you are confusing political claims with reality here.

And as much as Marines often revere "Old Gimlet Eye", most also admit that the guy towards the end of his career and life was just plain nuts. And he was highly pissed about being passed-over as Commandant.

 

But they might. We have closed a lot of our bases overseas in the last 20 years. Every base on the Philippines was closed decades ago. And we have closed a great many in Germany once the country reunified.

Trust me, in this era of smaller budgets, the DoD is not going to keep bases open that are not needed. In fact, back in the 1990's a lot of places were recommended for BRAC, but Congress forced them to keep them open because of political considerations.

If you do not know the function of the bases, then how can you actually comment on them?

And as far as "foreign bases", you might want to actually think about that. Remember, the vast majority of US bases overseas are actually "Joint Service" bases. For example, one of the most famous is "Mildenhall AFB", in the UK. However, the correct name is "RAF Mildenhall", and since the 1990's the only aircraft stationed there are transports and fuelers. So the majority of those bases are not even ours, we are guests on their bases.

And yes, the same thing happens here in the US. Go to almost any major base, and you find detachments for foreign units serving in the US. At Fort Bliss there are permanent detachments for both German and Japanese military members. White Sands has them also. And for the last 16 years, Holloman Air Force Base has been home to a rather large detachment of the Luftwaffe. I have seen such detachments for countries such as the UK, Germany, Japan, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Norway, and many other nations.

And sometimes the same country has multiple detachments. And they even get special benefits sometimes that we ourselves do not get. For example, the German Soldiers and Airmen that served had their own special gas station, where they paid a very low price (I think it was around $1 a gallon), where as we were paying over $4 a gallon at the PX.

So actually, yes. The US does allow it's allies the same kind of privledges that they get overseas. About the only excemptions for that the US has is in the examples of either now independent countries it gave independence to (like the bases on the Philippines), or those in once occupied nations where those bases were part of the armistance that ended the wars we had with them (Germany, Japan).

 

These are opinions. I state as much, don't I.

I don't pretend to know things pretty much no one will know the entirety of without being the person in charge of such things.

But there's a difference between foreign units being guests in a US military base, and those countries owning a base in the US that is only subject to their nations laws and jurisdiction.

 

Oh, but that does not happen with the US bases overseas either.

Here is something for you to research, SOFA, or "Status Of Forces Agreement".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement

And trust me, having US servicemembers tried overseas is nothing unusual. Way back in 1988, the JPs (Japanese Police) came onto Camp Schwab, and arrested and took away a Marine and put him in a Japanese jail because he violated one of their laws. And his crime? He failed a urinalisys test, which the US military had to turn over all such positive results to Japanese authorities. And under their law, a positive result is the same as possession of 1 ounce (after all, you must have the drug in order to fail the test).

So he was taken away, held in prison for 2 months (I had to weekly bring him his mail, Stars and Stripes, and 2 cases of MREs). Finally his trial was held, he was convicted, sentenced to 20 years at hard labor, with sentence suspended as long as he left on the next military flight out of Japan. 1 hour later he was boarding a plane bound for Korea. And since most flights from Korea to the US stop over in Japan (a country he was now forbidden to go to), I have no idea how he got home, or how long it took.

So no, servicemembers overseas are not only subject to US laws. And trust me, we follow the local laws as well. For example, even married couples in the majority of US bases in the Middle East can't have sex, share a room, or anything else. Because of this, it is policy that such couples be seperated as widely as possible, seperate bases when available. Things like this are all spelled out in the SOFA.

And foreign military serving in detachments in the US follow the same rules when they are over here.

Nothing here really special. Ask almost anybody who has served overseas, and they can tell you all about SOFA. Not a secret, not known only to the "person in charge". We always get a briefing of SOFA whenever we go overseas, it is mandatory. Often it is used as a way to try and scare the guys and gals into not breaking the law. It is one thing to get a bit drunk and punch a guy out if you think the worst that can happen is an Article 15.

It is something all together different when you realize that it means you might end up spending 30 years in a Turkish Prison, with a guy named Rifki.