1 in Afghanistan mountains, 14 in Iraq, and however many more in several other countries. Why the need for so many bases?
Also, can other countries put their military bases in the U.S.?
Someone please explain for ignorants such as myself. Thanks.
This is probably the best place to post this if you want serious answers Munni.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *
This is probably the best place to post this if you want serious answers Munni.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks Mr Xtreme. I wasnt sure this was WA forum material so I posted in General.
UTD can you please put the figure up again as you did before the thread was moved/cleaned. Thanks.
I am also wondering. Which country has the most amount of bases in other countries? Also, which country allows the least amount of bases within its territory? Thanks.
Every super power in its time had military outposts. At one time Romans had enough outposts to control the whole Mediterranean. Military out post are not some type of humanitarian out lets that the US would allow them on its soil. These are the very pillars of direct or indirect control or colonization.
In some military histories, military out posts were meant as tools to easily occupy and control foreign lands.
Military/ Intelligence personnel in 140+ countries out of 190+. The U.S. is the worlds first global superpower. Many bases are leftover from wars others to provide an umbrella to U.S. allies and it’s interests of now and of those in the future. Geopolitics my friend.
Terrorism..... Unless you are a nuclear power.
Re: What is the point in having a U.S. military base everywhere?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Munni: *
1 in Afghanistan mountains, 14 in Iraq, and however many more in several other countries. Why the need for so many bases?
Also, can other countries put their military bases in the U.S.?
Someone please explain for ignorants such as myself. Thanks.
[/QUOTE]
Most of the countries in which the USA has military bases originally allowed the USA to build those bases during the Cold War, in order to gain US protection that their own armed forces were unable to provide. Germany, Diego Garcia and the UK, and Japan are good examples of this. After the cold war was over, these countries never requested the USA to leave, partly because of the length of land leases to the US military, partly because it is diplomatically hostile to request the USA to close a military base and these countries didn't want to damage relations with the USA over this issue.
Guantanamo Bay at Cuba is another example - shortly after Cuba's independence, to Guarantee Cuba's independence from Spain, the Cuban government gave the right to the USA to maintain a naval base at Guantanamo Bay for ever.
Similarly, the Saudis allowed to USA to build military bases as a defence against a potential resurgence of Iraq - but when this resurgence did not occur, they did not want to damage relations with the USA by demanding the bases be closed.
Over time during the Cold War and afterwards, the USA found that your diplomatic influence over a region is directly proportion to you ability to deploy military forces to the region, as countries are more likely to side with you if they believe you can offer them a serious amount of protection. As the USA has aimed for global diplomatic influence, i.e in the long-term getting all countries on its side, being able to deploy your forces globally, ie having a global network of bases, is critical to ahive its diplomatic targets.
An example can be seen with the Central Asian States. These states are diplomatically and militarily tied to Russia. By having military bases in the region, the USA is slowly getting these countries to act more and more independently of russia (as they are somewhat less fearful of russia).
A similar example can be seen in Georgia, where the USA is trying to get Georgia to break out of Russia's orbit through closer military cooperation with the USA.
i love china
China has none... and I am sure france closed the amerikan bases it had.... and guess what two countries recently signed a military pact?
The US military is conducting a long overdue reassessment of troop deployment and bases on foreign soil. For the most part, the deployment we have maintained is based upon the aftermath of WWII and the Cold War. The current threat is significantly different than the threat posed by the Soviet Union and military thinking needs to respond.
Rumsfeld is a big proponent of lighter, smaller, quicker military forces placed in a more limited number of strategic locations. Our Old Europe allies ought to be able to defend themselves now that the Soviet Empire is a historical footnote. Defense treaties are not the basis of expanding relationships with our New Europe allies. I think you'll find the overall number of bases and troop strength deployed oversees shrink dramatically over the next decade.
Good article in today’s Post:
U.S. May Halve Forces in Germany
Shift in Europe, Asia Is Aimed at Faster Deployment
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 25, 2004; Page A01
The Pentagon has drafted plans to withdraw as many as half of the 71,000 troops based in Germany as part of an extensive realignment of American military forces that moves away from large concentrations in Europe and Asia, according to U.S. officials.
Under the plan, which is nearing approval, smaller, relatively spartan bases would be established in Romania and possibly Bulgaria, and designed for the rapid projection of U.S. military power against terrorists, hostile states and other potential adversaries.
Farther east, in Central Asia, bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan that were established in 2001 to support the war in Afghanistan would be preserved as training sites and as staging areas that U.S. forces could use in emergencies.
In Asia, about 15,000 troops out of a total presence of about 100,000 would be withdrawn, mostly by streamlining administrative staffs of the U.S. military commands in South Korea and Japan, the officials said. But much of that reduction could be offset by a buildup of personnel and aircraft in Guam and the possible stationing of another aircraft carrier battle group in either Guam or Hawaii, the officials said. The Pentagon plan also calls for new training and staging areas in Australia and expansion of military ties with Singapore and Thailand.
U.S. officials have said before that they intended to eliminate a number of large, full-service Cold War bases abroad and construct a network of more skeletal outposts closer to potential trouble spots in the Middle East and along the Pacific Rim. But neither the proposed size of the reductions in Europe and Asia nor details about locations of the new sites were previously disclosed.
The realignment would amount to a dramatic change in how U.S. forces are positioned around the globe. Some of the troops now overseas would be brought home, while vital equipment would be dispersed more widely to enable more nimble dispatch of forces. Another major objective, officials added, is to deepen military ties and joint training with a greater number of allies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia.
Several senior administration officials involved in the planning said in interviews that President Bush and his national security advisers are still a month or two away from approving the changes. Some key details have yet to be resolved, officials said, and more consultations with allies will be held.
But many aspects of the initiative have been well defined by Pentagon authorities. Defense officials, some of whom spoke on the condition that they not be named, agreed to discuss the plan after The Washington Post learned some details.
The planning reflects a recognition that potential threats have changed since the Cold War ended, said Douglas J. Feith, Pentagon undersecretary for policy and an architect of the global realignment plan.
“One of the main arguments for forward deployment in the old days was, you had a sense that you knew where you were going to fight and so you positioned your forces where you thought you were going to fight,” Feith said. “Our view now is you have to move to the fight.”
The administration still intends to retain a ring of permanent military hubs in closely allied countries, including Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan. But many other bases that the United States has relied on would be supplanted by a number of spare “forward operating sites” such as those planned for Eastern Europe. They would be maintained by small support staffs.
Other countries would be designated as “cooperative security locations,” providing staging areas that U.S. forces could occupy quickly in a conflict. These locations would have no permanent U.S. military presence but could be used periodically for training exercises.
In Western Europe, which hosts about 102,000 U.S. military service personnel, most of the expected reduction would come in Army forces in Germany.
The Army would withdraw more than 60 percent of its 56,000 troops in Germany, home to the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions, officials said, and several overlapping high-level commands would be consolidated.
The nature of the remaining force would change as well. Armored units there now would leave and be replaced in part by lighter, easier-to-deploy forces, possibly including a brigade of Stryker infantry combat vehicles – lightly armored wheeled vehicles central to the Army’s shift toward more agile, mobile units. Additionally, some troops sent to Europe would go for short rotations without families, instead of more traditional three-year tours with families.
Some substantial U.S. military operations would remain in Germany, including Ramstein Air Base, which defense officials view as a critical hub facility for supporting deployments to more distant places. But some U.S. fighter aircraft may be shifted to the Middle East.
Officials said the specific level of personnel reductions in Germany will depend on decisions involving relocation of the aircraft and stationing of a Stryker brigade in Germany, among other factors.
“The one thing I would strongly refute, because it comes up all the time, is the notion that we’re withdrawing forces to punish the Germans somehow” for their lack of support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Feith said. “What we’re doing is not at all tied to current events. We’re looking at this in terms of changes that will last decades.”
Feith said German authorities had been kept informed of U.S. plans. But the German military attaché here, Col. Carsten Jacobson, expressed surprise when told the force reduction could end up in the range of 50 percent. “It’s definitely higher than what we’ve heard so far,” he said, adding that his understanding was the proposed cuts were in the range of 20 to 30 percent.
Officials stressed that the entire realignment plan has many parts, involving not just the repositioning of U.S. forces but also a greater reliance on pre-positioning of combat equipment at staging areas in strategic locations and aboard ships.
Some defense specialists have questioned whether the administration may be planning too much retrenchment, upsetting relations with old allies and giving up valuable real estate in Germany and elsewhere to bring troops home where they would be farther from potential war zones.
“This set of proposals doesn’t seem to be thought out very carefully,” said Ashton Carter, who was an assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and is now co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard University. “Neither the strategic rationale nor the cost to the taxpayer nor the impact on our allies seems to have been thought through.”
But Feith said that plans are being closely coordinated with affected countries, and that it was outdated to think large numbers of forward-based forces would save deployment time. “In fact, some forward deployments will cost you time, because you have to get permission or you have to work things out” with host governments, he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22217-2004Mar24_2.html
bases
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The US military is conducting a long overdue reassessment of troop deployment and bases on foreign soil. For the most part, the deployment we have maintained is based upon the aftermath of WWII and the Cold War. The current threat is significantly different than the threat posed by the Soviet Union and military thinking needs to respond.
Rumsfeld is a big proponent of lighter, smaller, quicker military forces placed in a more limited number of strategic locations. Our Old Europe allies ought to be able to defend themselves now that the Soviet Empire is a historical footnote. Defense treaties are not the basis of expanding relationships with our New Europe allies. I think you'll find the overall number of bases and troop strength deployed oversees shrink dramatically over the next decade.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The soviet Union is gone... russia is hardly a threat to anyone except maybe a few unfortunate Chechnians...
They maintain the bases because they know that, if their military is still fist-raping every soverign nation, they are dominant; no nation can do anything the amerikkans don't approve of, because doing so would result in deployment of us forces via those bases.
to protect democray to fight terrorist? or in other words keep the white mans hegemony intact
YES!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabir: *
to protect democray to fight terrorist? or in other words keep the white mans hegemony intact
[/QUOTE]
YES, exactly!
geroge carlin once noted, rather comically, than the US has only bombed brown people (korea, vietnam, japan, phillipines, cuba, panama, iran, iraq, etc), and the last white people they bombed were the germans -- only because the germans were "cutting in on our action," i.e. attempting world domination.
mas scientist is very clear in most respects about the correlation of the ability to project military power having an influence on diplomatic relation.in post ww2 germany there was the complete destruction of the infrastructure,the fear of resurgent naziism,the communists in the east.while japan was allowed by treaty to keep the emperor in a cerimonial sense,the election of the diet was belived to be the best path toward stability,ie some type of representative govt.while it is true that in every representative govt. there will be those more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the people,they work well when they are nurtured,which is to say protected,which is to say by a militery presence.the thought that the united states would spend millions of dollars and about 210,000 dead to defeat japan,only to see it swallowed up by the soviets(who had finally declared war) just doesn't make sense.besides I think that the US citizenry would not have stood for it.Italy likewise has bases that are holdovers from ww2.england too.
the phillipines were a us territory and,were a holdover from the us colonial period.both the phillipines and the french had the us leave their
countries.the turks likewise after the 1969 jupiter long range missile dispute.these arrangements have their good and bad sides to be examined.
dark liquor may wish to examine more closely the actions of the gehime satspolezi(GESTAPO),the actions in reallity of heydrich,himmler,etal before comparing those actions to any nation except stalinist soviet russia and, the cultural revolution in china.death camps,forced starvation by collectivization of farms,ovens to burn millions of corpses in,etc.I respectfully submit that the analogy and, the comparison are somewhat exaggerated.Garcia.
?
I dont understand the point you're trying to make.
personally
personally... I don't think the US should have intervened in Europe during WWII. I know that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, but I do also realise that the Nazis weren't beligerent to the US, and the only reason they allied with Japan is so they could engage a 2 front war on the Soviet Union.
I also know that the US physical damage to Europe was worse than that of the Nazis. The nazis killed people... the amerikans blew up buildings, churches, factories, houses. The nazis marched under the Arc d'Triumph (very, very funny, if you ask me)... the amerikans stole german technology and scientists to use against the Soviets.
re statement regarding us intervention in europe during ww2.read more please.germany and japan has an alliance. the us declared war on japan,3 days later germany declared war on the us.regarding the use of the word intervention. bombasts and various celebrations of death promulgated by various intrest groups in the world will eventually wear the patience of all civilized people including all worshipers of the almighty to bring those responsible to arekoning wich will make the world shake unto it's foundations.unfortunatly there is going to both enough blame and blood to satisfy the tastes of even the most raving extremist. the term, the big green machine has not been shown to the world since august 1945. I fear for all civilized future.you are,I am sure fairly young and have not soilede your hands at war.it is a far more bloody business than you imagine.AND eventually this will all lead not to jihad or, crusade but, to unmitigated WAR. I capitalize that word because what has heretofore happened is childs play compared to war.
mark this well.my sorrow is for the hundreds of thousands that will die when the fond wish of all is realized.I have found that Muslims,Jews,CHristians,Hindu all, bleed red.Rave on,I pray you do NOT get your wish.
germany
I read that too... but did you ever hear of germany attacking the US? of course not. they did that to live up to their treaty.... I'm sure there were no plans to attack the us, at least not as of 1944 or so (since, seeing as how all tyrants are similar, hitler was like bush - plans of world conquer).
Re: germany
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DarkLiquor85: *
I read that too... but did you ever hear of germany attacking the US? of course not. they did that to live up to their treaty.... I'm sure there were no plans to attack the us, at least not as of 1944 or so (since, seeing as how all tyrants are similar, hitler was like bush - plans of world conquer).
[/QUOTE]
Germany U-boats began attacking merchant ships flying the US flag after declaring war on America.