Pros/Cons - Cost/Benefit of Foreign Military Bases

quote:

---

CATO Institute

---

Didn’t read

quote:

---

Didn’t read

---

If we only read the things with which we anticipate we will agree, we get a rather one-dimensional view of the world.

CATO says that Europe is the most-obvious case for closing bases and removing our permanent presence, because it is stable and peaceful and because Russia is no longer a threat of large-scale invasion. I tend to agree.

Even CATO admits that the analysis is more difficult in "hot spots," where it is entirely foreseeable that we will need to engage in military operations of some type. They still argue "shut them down," and I tend to disagree on this point.

In Europe, we can count upon allies making facilities available to us when needed. This is less true in a more "hot" environment with a less-stable ally or alliance.

Korea is another area where I disagree. I have no doubt that the presence of US troops has prevented hostilities in that theater. I say that despite the fact that a dear friend of mine died on a training exercise in Korea a couple of years after we graduated from TAMU.

In MOST places, I can envision a system in which we rotate troops through allies' facilities on an ongoing series of joint exercises, but in which we do NOT permanently base many of our combat troops overseas.

At the same time, I can see a number of bases scattered around the globe with a "skeleton crew" of support personnel and forward-deployed equipment and supplies, ready for quick occupancy when needed.

quote:

---

that the system is outdated

---

Not surprising since it really hasn't changed much post WWII.

quote:

---

not especially useful in modern times,

---

Power projection has significantly improved, so I would agree here as well...


We could definitely stand to cut the majority of our overseas bases or at least combine a lot of them...

We are flexing to the Pacific now, Australia has U.S. Marines based there, iirc USAF has plans for bases. We signed a 99 year lease for Al Udeid in Qatar, so the overseas footprint hasn't really changed since the days of the closures of Torrejon etc.

quote:

---

From USAF perspective Hickam, Australia, Guam, Yokota that covers it nicely.

---

Diego Garcia?

Yeah, I know it is tiny and NW Australia could accomplish the same thing geographically.

I was actually thinking we could easily cover all foreign corners of the globe with a sizable FOB in (1) Japan, (2) NW Australia (Port Hedland or Broome?), (3) NE Africa or northern tip of Madagascar and (4) somewhere on the SW coast of Africa or east coast of South America. Maybe somewhere on the northern coast of Argentina. Nice weather and hot women.

quote:

---

Diego Garcia?

---

I think some "international court" ruled that the Brits illegally seized the island from those originally living there.

And given how they cave in to the Muslims regularly, I think they will give it back, thus taking it off the table as an option.

The cost is too high, we are deeply in debt, our “allies” need to fund their own defense, and most of the bases are obsolete based upon current threats.

All to the cost of up to $120 Billion annually.

quote:

---

Maintaining overseas military bases is a uniquely American preoccupation: the United States has approximately 800 military bases; France and the United Kingdom have roughly 12 each; and Russia, the adversary with the next most overseas bases, has about 9.

---

quote:

---

NW Australia is quite literally the best spot on the planet from which we can assure an ability to make a quick response anywhere on the globe.

---

A place only slightly less desolate and God-forsaken as the shitholes we already occupy in the ME.

We need more austere bases and fewer "Camp Humphreys" type bases.