Military bases overseas are a vital part of American security, says U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes. Without them, crucial alliances in Asia could suffer.
As Washington continues to debate the consequences of defense cuts, one line of popular thinking is that we can save tax dollars without sacrificing security if we close down our overseas bases and bring our forces home. Why do we still have bases in Europe? Shouldn’t the Japanese just defend themselves?
But while we should carefully review the proper balance of our forward-deployed military assets, our overseas presence is both a fundamental enabler of our national defense policy and a means to safeguard shocks to the international system. Stationing U.S. Army soldiers, Marines, and Air Force and Navy assets forward is the only guaranteed way of protecting U.S. interests, responding immediately to a crisis, and reassuring our allies and friends.
Deterring regional aggression with forward basing has been central to U.S. military strategy since the end of World War II, when we resolved to never again have to “fight our way in” as we had just done in the Pacific. This strategy remains just as relevant today. Gen. Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, recently testified that “being forward deployed and forward engaged allows us to shape the environment as opposed to reacting to the environment.” If a conflict with Iran were to erupt, or North and South Korea found themselves on the brink of war, or China threatened the use of force to acquire Taiwan, the robust regional presence of U.S. forces would have an immediate impact, either to deter escalation or quickly respond to aggression.
The United States’ forward presence also offers numerous diplomatic benefits. The politics of maintaining a presence in foreign nations no doubt comes with challenges. However, it also represents a steadfast commitment to an ally, which provides the basis for a sustained diplomatic partnership and regular military engagement and training with the host nation. For example, six decades of close cooperation between U.S. and Japanese naval forces have built an unrivaled degree of trust and interoperability. The presence of U.S. forces in South Korea has also helped to fashion a close relationship with the government in Seoul that would be vital during a crisis. And in Europe, U.S. forces have trained with NATO allies so that they have the capabilities to operate with us during an operation.
Despite these benefits, a number of myths about our overseas presence continue to promulgate. First, critics contend that the U.S. can sustain the same level of deterrence by maintaining sophisticated power-projection capabilities based on U.S. territory. But lost in this argument is the logistics required to overcome the tremendous “tyranny of distance” that separates the American homeland from these regional hotspots. Air Force F-15, F-16, and A-10 jets are inter-theater assets that aren’t designed to deploy across entire oceans. From Pearl Harbor, the Navy would have to sail 6,200 kilometers to Japan or 10,800 kilometers to the Strait of Malacca. The Marines would face an even greater hurdle if forced to deploy from the continental United States. Gen. Dunford testified that “it would take months to move (a force from the Continental United States) to the Western Pacific and seven consecutive miracles in terms of synchronizing the planes, trains and automobiles associated with moving that force.” Faced with these geographic hurdles, a continental-based military would be severely inhibited in its ability to credibly deter regional aggression and reassure American allies.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Sajid
Military presence in 71 countries is going to suck your blood soon! US better remain at home then roaming around the continents to terrorize others.
Carlton Meyer
As one who has spent decades analyzing America’s overseas bases, Mr. Forbes has it wrong. He proposes changing nothing, thus improving nothing. For those interested in details, here is a website: http://www.g2mil.com/OBCL.htm
It costs much more to keep GI overseas than in the USA, money that could be spent for bombs and bullets. Claims that Korea and Japan make any meaningful contributions are complete BS. For example, the Koreans are building family housing towers for U.S. troop families, but will charge the USA $5200 a month in rent per family.
Forward airfields, ammo stockpiles, and joint training are great. Keeping ships based overseas is foolish and costly. Remember Pearl Harbor? That was possible because the Pacific fleet was moved from San Diego to Hawaii. What about our forward bases in the Philippines? All aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and our military was unable to organize a decent defense because it was too busy evacuating families. And today, our main airbase in Korea is Osan, which is range of North Korean artillery! Gross incompetence! And our ships in Japan sit in port most of the time where the Chinese could hit them with a ballistic missile. If war breaks out, our Navy’s goal is to escape to the safety of the Central Pacific. Madness!
Gordon Fowkes
The word “base” needs to be clarified, as it appears that the use of the word in this discussion and others defines “base” as some form of fortress, or of an offensive base that includes some form of violent capabilitiy. Or as some form of garrison containing combat trooops.
There are a few that fit that bill, but the arguments agains US bases of this ilke should be identified as such and for what reason. I have been on some of those bases with combat troops in Germany, There are Naval bases and airfields for military ships and contracted cargo ships. Most of them are no different than a Walmart base for loading or unloading Chinese goods.
The vast majority of “bases” are office or storage spaces, as often as not, staffed by local nationals. As the US pulled out of Germany, local politicians lamented over the loss of jobs to local voters.
And, it should be noted of foreign bases on US or Canadian soil, like the German Air Force base in El Paso or the Tank base in Canada. Both cases are necessary to train German troops to take advantage of better weather.
Yang zi
For cold war enthusiasts, this is an interesting news, Seychelles asked China to set up an anti-piracy base there.
US already has a drone base there, Seychelles also asked Russia to help them fight piracy.
davida
dude, i am from australia and i am strongly and utterly opposed to having us base on australian soil. i dont understand what purpose it serves. it not only does nothing to prevent china from going ballistic, it also sends a wrong message to our neighbours, not the least of which is indonesia.
if they are not scared of china, why should we be? keep in mind, should chinese hords ever go nuts, indonesians first have to bear the brunt if the author does not understand “geo” in the word geopolitics.
hugh white is correct in urging more balanced foreign policy and i think its also the time for us to wake up to the reality, which it has too many allies whose interest often diverges from others, and they have too limited resources. too frivolous wars dont help.
one last point, the presence of us troops does nothing, except to the catalyst for arm race and instability. every one is saying regional integration. how can it happen when some countries stay one the ass of us and some don’t.
i admire obama but i dont think he has what it takes to do what is right for americans and people of the world.
Yang zi
To understand base issues, one should go back to basics and also look at future.
In basic military strategy, the base is a place to anchor, support and stage for war. A base must be secure. The best way to secure a base, is to station out of enemy fire range.
Forward deployment is an oxymoron. It is fundamentally a flawed deployment pattern. In a couple of decade, many US bases in Asia will become a military liability in a hypothetical war with China.
To avoid this liability, US will lean on Aussies to expand Darwin base. There will be more headaches coming to Australia’s way.
By enlarging Darwin base, US over taxed goodwill from ASEAN. ASEAN’s concern over China is real but exaggerated. China still enjoys good relationship with many of these countries. China is sensing this and start to portray US as disturbing peace. It is right though. US is concerned about maintaining its dominance, not really what Philppines and Vietnam want.
John Chan
People do not study history bound to repeat history. During the WWII, Japanese had bases all over Asia, The sizes of Japanese troops in those bases made American troops look dwarf. After Japanese lost their aircraft carriers, supporting Japanese troops on those bases became a burden to the Japan homeland instead of as strategy assets. The lives on those bases became appalling, and the Japanese on those bases as well the supply ships all became sitting ducks to be picked up by the American like practicing targets. The endings of Japanese on those remote bases were tragedy.
It seems American is replaying WWII’s Japanese role by having bases all over Asia; would the Americans on those bases need to endeavour the same hardship as those Japanese after their aircraft carries are put out of commission? It seems it is a scenario too remote to contemplate by the American Military planner right now. Perhaps those advocating USA to have more bases in Asia believe history won’t repeat.
BTW, the day ASBM is tested, the countdown for the reunification of Taiwan and China is started too.
Jason K. Ashby
China needs to talk about their own civil rights issues before they intervene on their neighbors. A great deal of mistrust can arise out of saying one thing to the world and another to your citizens. It makes me nervous when I read comments that suggest unification through militarization. After reading the article and the previous comments, my opinion is that it might be in the best interest of the world and its partners to monitor the peaceful rise of modern China. At times “individuals” get upset and rowdy. “Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him.” ~M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter