Dismantling an empire

[AAReagles]

Yesterday I came across this article in the Los Angeles Times, that raised the issue of the US military maintaining its' presence on the island of Okinawa. It was quite interesting in the fact that it also mentioned the number of bases the US has (700) in some 130 countries.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...hnson-20100506

As bad as this sounds, I was completely unaware of the fact that we (the US) had so many bases in an unbelieveable amount of countries. I knew that we were regarded as a 'super power', such as Russia, and now China, but now I think we are indeed an empire. More importantly, I wonder if it is necessary to have so many bases strung throughout the globe.

I'm not one for the disarming the defense capabilities of our nation, but I do think that just the expenses alone are reason enough to consider this state of affairs as unnecessary. Particularly since it's been years since the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Bloc countries regained their sovereignty.

Yes there are still viable threats out there, possibly Russia still, as well as China, N. Korea, Iran and whatever other country garnishes itself with nuclear power - nevertheless we have nuclear brinkmanship (as always). And having some bases/ports is beneficial, and good even, as long as corresponding countries/societies can agree to it.

There are of course military logistical reasons for maintaining fortified centers of operations, however it seems a bit of overdone. Particularly since the economic mess we're in isn't helping things any.

Another reason that I'm not so game on this global military positioning, is that it makes it that much easier, or 'encouraging' I should say, to launch an assault on other regions. Which is not a good thing when you consider how eager our trigger-happy gov't., has been in the past to get us involved in conflicts.

Any thoughts?


Note: hopefully this is a thread that will have some reasonable keyboard diplomacy and not get itself closed because of someone's jactitation. Be it American or otherwise.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't understand why the USA needs such a huge navy. The US Navy could sink all the other Navies in the world. Do they really need 11 or so aircraft carriers?

[AAReagles]

Well that was another point I forgot to make, is that we have a big enough navy to get the job done - and no, I am not for a reduction in that or our armed forces in general, just a reduction in our military presence throughout the globe.

[Easy Drifter]

Without knowing more about the bases it is hard to say if they are really needed.
Some may be just radar stations or satellite tracking stations.
Some may be and quite likely are, basically refueling stations for either planes or ships. I would expect quite a few to be in various parts of Europe and often are airbases.
Just the same 700 seems awfully high and so does 130 countries.
Do they include bases in the US in the 700?
Every state has a Ntl. Guard and there are more than 50 bases alone there. Way more I expect as many have both army and air force Ntl. Guard units. Add in the regular airforce, marine, army and navy bases and it adds up in a hurry. Do they also count the US Coast Guard?
Do they also count bases such as the NORAD base in North Bay, Ont. which is a CFB base but has US personnal assigned there?
The 130 countries is harder to understand.

[airshifter]

No doubt the cost is staggering, but in the scheme of 2010 budgets and economics, the cost of just about everything in the US is staggering.

There are in fact many "bases" that consist of a building or two on a small parcel of land. While combing through one of those giant lists I came across places I had been, and sometimes small areas off of the main "base" were considered another physical location and base. In some cases the land between the buildings is leased by the US government, but it is left open and unsecured so the general public can use the land.



I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not. Okinawa is a prime example of this type of thing. Having lived there for a year I have seen both sides of the debate, but very few people understand that Okinawans for the most part will be unhappy with just about anything the Japanese government does.

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.



As for the Navy and the carriers.... well for one we will keep building them. They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level. A carrier full of combat troops can loiter offshore for as long as needed, an aircraft can't. But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.



Good topic but I suspect the US bashers will be along soon to claim it's all Bush's fault or something.

[Bob Riebe]

No doubt the cost is staggering, but in the scheme of 2010 budgets and economics, the cost of just about everything in the US is staggering.

There are in fact many "bases" that consist of a building or two on a small parcel of land. While combing through one of those giant lists I came across places I had been, and sometimes small areas off of the main "base" were considered another physical location and base. In some cases the land between the buildings is leased by the US government, but it is left open and unsecured so the general public can use the land.



I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not. Okinawa is a prime example of this type of thing. Having lived there for a year I have seen both sides of the debate, but very few people understand that Okinawans for the most part will be unhappy with just about anything the Japanese government does.

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.



As for the Navy and the carriers.... well for one we will keep building them. They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level. A carrier full of combat troops can loiter offshore for as long as needed, an aircraft can't. But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.



Good topic but I suspect the US bashers will be along soon to claim it's all Bush's fault or something.

Hmm, we have too many ships and too many bases; tell how that works to the Brits in the Falklands.

[tstran17_88]

Hmm, we have too many ships and too many bases;

My guess is that the US Navy was caught with their pants down and/or made bad decisions one early Sunday morning in 1941. Who was their chief and commanding officer/president at the time?

Somebody after that decided that would never happen again.

The next time that something like that happened was a beautiful late summer day in September 2001 when after the previous executive administration in Washington DC deregulated the armed forces that protect the US against foreign invaders.

Is their a similarity in the political aspirations of the president in 1941, who had served since 1933 and the president who was in charge pre-2001?

[Jag_Warrior]

I think of the U.S. bases around the world more as quasi-police stations than colonies or parts of an empire. When a nation has an empire, there's usually money flowing IN from the colonies. In our case, the money goes in the other direction.

For anyone who is interested in a comparing and contrasting a super power of the ancient world with one from today, there is a wonderful book which I highly recommend: "Empires of Trust --- How Rome Built and America is Building a New World"

[Eki]

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.

What difference does it make if the land is private or owned by the government? After the war, Finland had to lease land to a Soviet military base on the south cost of Finland (the Soviets abandoned it in 1956). The land was privately owned, but the owners had no say in it. The Finnish government just relocated them elsewhere.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think there is a rational argument for the US forces to contract their numbers of bases around the world. There are compelling arguments though that do stand up over time why they stay. The fact is, superpowers by their mere presence in a region actually do add stability. Whether it was the USSR or the USA, no one would attack one or the other in a region, and any regional conflicts that went on near the presence of the military of a superpower did so at their peril. The US has been in a lot of nations with their bases, mainly through accident or the aftermath of wars, and the presence of their troops being there has stopped hostile action in the territories they sit in. Russia or China didn't conteplate a move on Taiwan or Japan, and the Korean conflict has hit a defacto truce because mainly of the US Military being there. So there is a benefit to the "trip wire" of the US Army in that region.

I think Jag's point is spot on though. The US pays a lot more to maintain this presence than the multinationals based in America get back in business. In short, the US could probably spend the money better elsewhere if not for the geo-political benefits of the military being spread around the world.

As for the size of the US Navy, there is a VERY good reason it is that big. It makes for a more comfortable cycle and rotation for the sailors who have to maintain and supply the military presence around the world. What is more, the cost of having to build or borrow the ships if something does come up is a LOT. Just ask the people who had to write the checks in the UK in the run up and aftermath of the Falklands.

Large nations with influence, whether it be the USSR/Russia, or the USA, or China will maintain a large military because in the end, that is how they stay a large nation with influence.