Foreign Bases

By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books. Posted February 19, 2007.
With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases
spread across each continent, it’s time to face up to the fact that our American democracy
has spawned a global empire.

The following is excerpted from Chalmers Johnson’s new book, “Nemesis: The Last Days of
the American Republic” (Metropolitan Books).

Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies.
America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of
global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial
“footprint” and the militarism that grows with it.

It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official
records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive.
According to the Defense Department’s annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real
property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense
churning in the numbers of installations.

The total of America’s military bases in other people’s countries in 2005, according to
official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of
President Bush’s strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases
continues to go up.

Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread
around the globe in 2005 — mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets — almost
exactly equals Britain’s thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in
1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police
its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of
major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is
somewhere between thirty-five and forty.

Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas
bases were worth at least $127 billion — surely far too low a figure but still larger than the
gross domestic products of most countries — and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them,
foreign and domestic (a base’s “worth” is based on a Department of Defense estimate of
what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to
our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of
dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425
locally hired foreigners.

The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically,
was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service
employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon,
contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and
16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as
covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon
easily one of the world’s largest landlords.

These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we
occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails, for instance, to mention any
garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which Kosovo is still officially a province) — even though it
is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR
corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the Halliburton
Corporation of Houston.

The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq (106 garrisons as of May 2005), Israel,
Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, even though the U.S. military has established colossal
base structures in the Persian Gulf and Central Asian areas since 9/11. By way of excuse, a
note in the preface says that “facilities provided by other nations at foreign locations” are
not included, although this is not strictly true. The report does include twenty sites in Turkey,
all owned by the Turkish government and used jointly with the Americans.
The Pentagon continues to omit from its accounts most of the $5 billion worth of military and
espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air
Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would
probably top 1,000 different bases overseas, but no one — possibly not even the Pentagon —
knows the exact number for sure.

In some cases, foreign countries themselves have tried to keep their U.S. bases secret,
fearing embarrassment if their collusion with American imperialism were revealed. In other
instances, the Pentagon seems to want to play down the building of facilities aimed at
dominating energy sources, or, in a related situation, retaining a network of bases that
would keep Iraq under our hegemony regardless of the wishes of any future Iraqi
The U.S. government tries not to divulge any information about the bases we use to
eavesdrop on global communications, or our nuclear deployments, which, as William Arkin,
an authority on the subject, writes, “[have] violated its treaty obligations. The U.S. was lying
to many of its closest allies, even in NATO, about its nuclear designs. Tens of thousands of
nuclear weapons, hundreds of bases, and dozens of ships and submarines existed in a
special secret world of their own with no rational military or even ‘deterrence’ justification.”

In Jordan, to take but one example, we have secretly deployed up to five thousand troops in
bases on the Iraqi and Syrian borders. (Jordan has also cooperated with the CIA in torturing
prisoners we deliver to them for “interrogation.”) Nonetheless, Jordan continues to stress
that it has no special arrangements with the United States, no bases, and no American
military presence.

The country is formally sovereign but actually a satellite of the United States and has been
so for at least the past ten years. Similarly, before our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia in 2003,
we habitually denied that we maintained a fleet of enormous and easily observed B-52
bombers in Jeddah because that was what the Saudi government demanded. So long as
military bureaucrats can continue to enforce a culture of secrecy to protect themselves, no
one will know the true size of our baseworld, least of all the elected representatives of the
American people.

In 2005, deployments at home and abroad were in a state of considerable flux. This was
said to be caused both by a long overdue change in the strategy for maintaining our global
dominance and by the closing of surplus bases at home. In reality, many of the changes
seemed to be determined largely by the Bush administration’s urge to punish nations and
domestic states that had not supported its efforts in Iraq and to reward those that had.
Thus, within the United States, bases were being relocated to the South, to states with
cultures, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, “more tied to martial traditions” than the
Northeast, the northern Middle West, or the Pacific Coast. According to a North Carolina
businessman gloating over his new customers, “The military is going where it is wanted and
valued most.”

In part, the realignment revolved around the Pentagon’s decision to bring home by 2007 or
2008 two army divisions from Germany — the First Armored Division and the First Infantry
Division — and one brigade (3,500 men) of the Second Infantry Division from South Korea
(which, in 2005, was officially rehoused at Fort Carson, Colorado). So long as the Iraq
insurgency continues, the forces involved are mostly overseas and the facilities at home are
not ready for them (nor is there enough money budgeted to get them ready).

Nonetheless, sooner or later, up to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members will have to
be accommodated within the United States. The attendant 2005 “base closings” in the
United States are actually a base consolidation and enlargement program with tremendous
infusions of money and customers going to a few selected hub areas. At the same time,
what sounds like a retrenchment in the empire abroad is really proving to be an exponential
growth in new types of bases — without dependents and the amenities they would require —
in very remote areas where the U.S. military has never been before.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was obvious to anyone who thought about it
that the huge concentrations of American military might in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South
Korea were no longer needed to meet possible military threats. There were not going to be
future wars with the Soviet Union or any country connected to any of those places.

In 1991, the first Bush administration should have begun decommissioning or redeploying
redundant forces; and, in fact, the Clinton administration did close some bases in Germany,
such as those protecting the Fulda Gap, once envisioned as the likeliest route for a Soviet
invasion of Western Europe. But nothing was really done in those years to plan for the
strategic repositioning of the American military outside the United States.

By the end of the 1990s, the neoconservatives were developing their grandiose theories to
promote overt imperialism by the “lone superpower” — including preventive and preemptive
unilateral military action, spreading democracy abroad at the point of a gun, obstructing the
rise of any “near-peer” country or bloc of countries that might challenge U.S. military
supremacy, and a vision of a “democratic” Middle East that would supply us with all the oil
we wanted.
A component of their grand design was a redeployment and streamlining of the military. The
initial rationale was for a program of transformation that would turn the armed forces into a
lighter, more agile, more high-tech military, which, it was imagined, would free up funds that
could be invested in imperial policing.

What came to be known as “defense transformation” first began to be publicly bandied
about during the 2000 presidential election campaign. Then 9/11 and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq intervened. In August 2002, when the whole neocon program began to
be put into action, it centered above all on a quick, easy war to incorporate Iraq into the
By this time, civilian leaders in the Pentagon had become dangerously overconfident
because of what they perceived as America’s military brilliance and invincibility as
demonstrated in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda — a strategy that
involved reigniting the Afghan civil war through huge payoffs to Afghanistan’s Northern
Alliance warlords and the massive use of American airpower to support their advance on

In August 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unveiled his “1-4-2-1 defense
strategy” to replace the Clinton era’s plan for having a military capable of fighting two wars
— in the Middle East and Northeast Asia — simultaneously. Now, war planners were to
prepare to defend the United States while building and assembling forces capable of
“deterring aggression and coercion” in four “critical regions”: Europe, Northeast Asia
(South Korea and Japan), East Asia (the Taiwan Strait), and the Middle East, be able to
defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously, and “win decisively” (in the sense
of “regime change” and occupation) in one of those conflicts “at a time and place of our
As the military analyst William M. Arkin commented, “[With] American military forces …
already stretched to the limit, the new strategy goes far beyond preparing for reactive
contingencies and reads more like a plan for picking fights in new parts of the world.”

A seemingly easy three-week victory over Saddam Hussein’s forces in the spring of 2003
only reconfirmed these plans. The U.S. military was now thought to be so magnificent that it
could accomplish any task assigned to it. The collapse of the Baathist regime in Baghdad
also emboldened Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to use “transformation” to penalize
nations that had been, at best, lukewarm about America’s unilateralism — Germany, Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey — and to reward those whose leaders had welcomed
Operation Iraqi Freedom, including such old allies as Japan and Italy but also former
communist countries such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. The result was the
Department of Defense’s Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, known informally
as the “Global Posture Review.”

President Bush first mentioned it in a statement on November 21, 2003, in which he pledged
to “realign the global posture” of the United States. He reiterated the phrase and elaborated
on it on August 16, 2004, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars in Cincinnati. Because Bush’s Cincinnati address was part of the 2004 presidential
election campaign, his comments were not taken very seriously at the time.
While he did say that the United States would reduce its troop strength in Europe and Asia
by 60,000 to 70,000, he assured his listeners that this would take a decade to accomplish —
well beyond his term in office — and made a series of promises that sounded more like a
reenlistment pitch than a statement of strategy.

“Over the coming decade, we’ll deploy a more agile and more flexible force, which means
that more of our troops will be stationed and deployed from here at home. We’ll move some
of our troops and capabilities to new locations, so they can surge quickly to deal with
unexpected threats. … It will reduce the stress on our troops and our military families. …
See, our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability
and fewer moves over a career. Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater
stability, more time for their kids and to spend with their families at home.”

On September 23, 2004, however, Secretary Rumsfeld disclosed the first concrete details of
the plan to the Senate Armed Services Committee. With characteristic grandiosity, he
described it as “the biggest re-structuring of America’s global forces since 1945.” Quoting
then undersecretary Douglas Feith, he added, “During the Cold War we had a strong sense
that we knew where the major risks and fights were going to be, so we could deploy people
right there. We’re operating now [with] an entirely different concept. We need to be able to
do [the] whole range of military operations, from combat to peacekeeping, anywhere in the
world pretty quickly.”

Though this may sound plausible enough, in basing terms it opens up a vast landscape of
diplomatic and bureaucratic minefields that Rumsfeld’s militarists surely underestimated. In
order to expand into new areas, the Departments of State and Defense must negotiate with
the host countries such things as Status of Forces Agreements, or SOFAs, which are
discussed in detail in the next chapter.
In addition, they must conclude many other required protocols, such as access rights for
our aircraft and ships into foreign territory and airspace, and Article 98 Agreements. The
latter refer to article 98 of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which allows
countries to exempt U.S. citizens on their territory from the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Such immunity agreements were congressionally mandated by the American
Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, even though the European Union holds that they
are illegal. Still other necessary accords are acquisitions and cross-servicing agreements
or ACSAs, which concern the supply and storage of jet fuel, ammunition, and so forth; terms
of leases on real property; levels of bilateral political and economic aid to the United States
(so-called host-nation support); training and exercise arrangements (Are night landings
allowed? Live firing drills?); and environmental pollution liabilities.

When the United States is not present in a country as its conqueror or military savior, as it
was in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II and in South Korea after the 1953
Korean War armistice, it is much more difficult to secure the kinds of agreements that allow
the Pentagon to do anything it wants and that cause a host nation to pick up a large part of
the costs of doing so. When not based on conquest, the structure of the American empire of
bases comes to look exceedingly fragile.

From the book NEMESIS: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson.
Reprinted by arrangement with Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company,
LLC. Copyright (c) 2006 by Chalmers Johnson. All rights reserved.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s