US Overseas Military Bases: Overview

Introduction

Since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, the United States has been restructuring its overseas military bases to meet the changed strategic environment. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, in operation since the late 1980s, has focused on closing Cold War–era bases to ensure that funds are available for the new requirements. Various bases in Europe and East Asia have been scheduled for closing or realignment so that the military can focus more on threats elsewhere, such as in the Middle East.

In August 2004, President George W. Bush proposed what he called the largest restructuring of US overseas military bases since the end of the Korean War. Under that plan, the Defense Department would transfer up to 70,000 troops and as many as 100,000 of their dependents and civilian employees from Europe and Asia to the continental United States. As part of its Global War on Terrorism operations, the US Department of Defense has been establishing large fortified bases in the Persian Gulf, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics claim that these “super-bases” are signs of US imperialism, but US officials argue that the facilities have been approved by host governments and will promote regional stability.

Fixed military bases are of limited use, however, against mobile terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda, which rely on agility rather than fortified armies. To meet such a threat, the United States may choose to rely less on fixed bases and more on “spur-of-the-moment” agreements with foreign partners to provide airspace and temporary basing rights. If such basing rights are not available, the United States may choose to rely on alternative means such as very long-range aircraft, naval forces operating in international waters, or space-based weaponry.

Understanding the Discussion

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): The process by which the US Department of Defense determines which military bases to keep open, which to close, and which to use for other purposes. BRAC was established by the US Congress in the late 1980s, to respond to the end of the Cold War. The purpose of BRAC is to ensure that US system of military bases is organized to meet the nation’s security requirements in the most efficient and effective way.

Host nation: A nation that allows the United States to establish a base in that country’s territory.

Status of forces agreement (SOFA): An agreement between the United States and a host nation to establish the legal status of the US bases and personnel located in the host nation. US military bases and personnel usually enjoy a large measure of “extraterritoriality,” meaning that they are governed by US laws rather than the laws of the host nation.

Unified command plan (UCP): The document that establishes the missions and geographic responsibilities of the top US military commanders. Several of the “combatant commanders” are responsible for US military operations in large sections of the globe, such as the Middle East or the Pacific region, while others are responsible for a specific function, such as transportation or Special Forces.

History

Until the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States had a very limited number of overseas military bases with good reason. From their colonial experience, the American public distrusted large standing militaries in peacetime, and also wanted to avoid what George Washington had called “entangling alliances” with other nations. Americans were also too busy settling the North American continent to think much about acquiring and defending overseas colonies. Even though the US Navy operated around the world during the nineteenth century, the service had practically no overseas bases; ships carried their own supplies or obtained them from local ports of call.

Things began to change in the late nineteenth century, when the American public saw the European nations scrambling to gain colonies in Africa and Asia. Great Britain and France, for example, required extensive systems of forts and naval bases to protect their huge colonial empires. In the United States, an increasing number of people supported imperialism on the grounds that colonies would provide sources of raw materials and markets for US products. Others saw imperialism as a way to spread American ideals to other lands. As the United States began to take a larger role in international affairs, the US Navy was transformed from a small force meant for coastal defense into a powerful battle fleet operating on the high seas. To maintain this powerful naval force, the United States established coaling stations at strategic locations around the world, particularly in the Pacific.

Victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 made the United States a world power. At the peace negotiations, the United States received three former Spanish colonies: Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and Guam and the Philippines in the Pacific. The United States also took control of Cuba’s independence process and established a naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This base remains in US hands a century later, despite the communist revolution in that country.

Despite increased international possessions, however, the number of permanent overseas bases remained small even after World War I. The military returned to peacetime strength during the 1920s, as Americans sought to stay out of foreign wars. The US Marines were sent to stop a number of conflicts in the Caribbean and Latin America but usually returned to the United States shortly afterward. During this same period, the US Navy maintained a small patrol on China’s Yangtze River to protect American citizens and interests during the Chinese Civil War.

During the late 1930s, the United States began to prepare for the prospect of war against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. US military planning gradually extended to the defense of not just the US mainland but the entire Western Hemisphere. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt declared a Destroyers-for-Bases Agreement, providing Britain and Canada with obsolete warships in exchange for bases in the West Indies and Newfoundland. The following year, Congress approved the Lend-Lease Act, which enabled the president to provide the Allied nations with war equipment with or without payment. In early 1941, US forces occupied Iceland, with Icelanders’ approval, as part of a joint US-British force intended to prevent German occupation. The United States stayed in Iceland after World War II, as a base for tracking Soviet activity in the North Atlantic.

The United States dramatically expanded its military bases during the Cold War, with a large percentage of its forces being deployed in Europe, to counter the threat of a Soviet invasion. This move was in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949 as a military alliance of the Western democracies. Many US forces were also deployed to the Pacific, particularly in Japan, in support of forces in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. After the Philippines expelled US forces in 1992, many of those units redeployed to other bases in the Far East.

As the Cold War neared its end in the late 1980s, the US government began the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. In October 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall fell, Congress passed legislation that established a special independent commission to consider which military bases to close and which to “realign” with a new purpose. Since that time, the BRAC commissions are thought to have saved the Defense Department more than $17 billion.

US military policy changed dramatically after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. President George W. Bush declared a global war on terror, which was later described by Pentagon officials as the Long War. The Bush administration considered the 2003 Iraq War and ongoing military operations in Iraq as part of this larger war. Many commentators wondered whether the United States planned to establish a permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq. By the late 2000s, several large US facilities nicknamed “super-bases” had already been built in Iraq. Critics expressed concern that these represent America’s efforts to exercise imperial control, while supporters argued that this was a way to minimize the US military presence in a host country.

President Barack Obama continued in the vein of his predecessor in terms of ensuring the United States had bases set up in the Middle East, even as troops were removed from Iraq and drawn down in Afghanistan. During the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected the idea of another BRAC commission, the last having been conducted in 2005. However, Obama later supported, and Congress opposed, a Pentagon budget that included a BRAC commission slated for 2015–17. Nevertheless, the Defense Department closed dozens of overseas bases, which did not require the congressional approval conferred by BRAC. According to congressional testimony by Defense Department undersecretary Dorothy Robyn, between 2003 and 2012, over a hundred European bases were decommissioned, and twenty-three more were scheduled for 2012–15. The focus was shifting to bases in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.

US Overseas Military Bases Today

Because terrorist networks use unconventional tactics and weaponry, it is difficult for the United States to rely on large numbers of fixed bases. It may make more sense to rely on highly mobile units, including Special Operations Forces (SOF), which can be sent quickly to any part of the world. This might mean a greater reliance on air transport, using fast, long-distance aircraft. It may mean a greater emphasis on high-speed weapons or space-based weapons. It may also mean developing concepts such as the navy’s sea basing concept, which would place floating platforms (“sea bases”) at strategic locations around the world, to serve as pre-positioned supply depots. Another avenue is the joint use of the military bases maintained by a host country. In 2014, the United States and the Philippines agreed to one such arrangement, in which US troops and supplies could be kept in facilities within Philippine bases.

Beyond mere capabilities and new advances in troop deployment and mobile base units, perhaps the greatest challenge the United States faces in withdrawing any of its post–World War II bases is damaging its international superpower image. Withdrawal of military bases overseas might suggest a loss of American power, influence, and prestige and might give additional, though unintended, support to rogue states like North Korea. It could also suggest a change in American interests in various regions of the world as well as the lack of support for traditional allies. Another important issue is that the notion of what constitutes a permanent base is continually being redefined. For example, while the United States might “permanently” leave Iraq, it still had five bases in mid-2015 and was contemplating reopening others in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Meanwhile, tensions remain with host populations in countries where US overseas military bases are located, as in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, where many have expressed discontent with the thirty-some US military bases still in operation more than seven decades after the end of World War II. This suggests that the US withdrawal from post–World War II bases is as much a political and diplomatic issue as it is an economic and resources one.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

“Base Realignment and Closure 2005.” Defense.gov, United States Department of Defense, 19 Jan. 2007.

Cooley, Alexander. “Base Politics.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 84, no. 6, 2005, pp. 79–92.

Converse, Elliott V., III. Circling the Earth: United States Plans for a Postwar Overseas Military Base System, 1942–1948. Air UP, 2005.

Crichton, Kyle. “What Exactly Is a Permanent Base?” At War: Notes from the Front Lines, New York Times, 18 June 2008, archive.nytimes.com/atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/what-exactly-is-a-permanent-base. Accessed 30 May 2024.

Hellman, Christopher, and John Isaacs. “Closing Time.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 61, no. 6, 2005, pp. 20–75.

Herb, Jeremy. “President Flips, Wants Base Closures.” The Hill, 11 Apr. 2013.

Klaus, Jon D. U.S. Military Overseas Basing: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2004.

MacAskill, Ewan. “Iraq Rejects US Request to Maintain Bases after Troop Withdrawal.” The Guardian, 21 Oct. 2011, www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases. Accessed 30 May 2024.

McCurry, Justin. “As Okinawa Marks 40 Years of Postwar Sovereignty, US Bases Still an Irritant.” Christian Science Monitor, 15 May 2012, www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/0515/As-Okinawa-marks-40-years-of-postwar-sovereignty-US-bases-still-an-irritant. Accessed 30 May 2024.

“Philippines Insists US Military Accord Is Legal.” AP News, 27 May 2014, apnews.com/general-news-883b58dc0a3640c6aa5d93c1b11e75c3. Accessed 30 May 2024.

“Report: US Paying Billions More for Military Bases Overseas despite Troop Reductions.” CBS DC, 17 Apr. 2013, washington.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/report-us-paying-billions-more-for-military-bases-overseas-despite-troop-reductions. Accessed 1 Apr. 2014.

Renteria, Mark A. “Last One Out Turns Off the Lights: Closing a Military Base during the Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq.” Army Sustainment, vol. 45, no. 2, 2013, pp. 27–31.

Vine, David. “Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?” Politico Magazine, July–Aug. 2015, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321. Accessed 30 May 2024.