United States has around 800 military bases in foreign countries

[Nemo1024]

The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

 With the US military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of US bases and hundreds of thousands of US troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.

Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Chalmers Johnson insisted, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.” Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I’ve spent years trying to track and understand what he called our “empire of bases.” While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: in a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from US military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we’ve been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it’s long past time that we faced that fact.

...

 The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic. Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, US taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States.

...

 The United States isn’t, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory. Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside US and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas. In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases.

Read more...
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

[edric]

The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

 With the US military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of US bases and hundreds of thousands of US troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.

Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Chalmers Johnson insisted, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.” Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I’ve spent years trying to track and understand what he called our “empire of bases.” While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: in a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from US military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we’ve been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it’s long past time that we faced that fact.

...

 The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic. Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, US taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States.

...

 The United States isn’t, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory. Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside US and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas. In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases.

Read more...
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

Would you rather it be Russia or China with 800 military bases around the world?

[Gronthaing]

Would you rather it be Russia or China with 800 military bases around the world?

How about no one? There are other ways to prevent that. No need to waste all that money in the military, and make others do the same. A better way is to stop invading other countries and trying to control the world and instead help them develop so they don't become dependent on others. I know, scary. They might all become socialists or something. Then help countries in a region cooperate between themselves economically and militarily. Doesn't mean they have to like each other. But if there is a military threat, they can more easily deal with it and other challenges.

[iv4n]

Would you rather it be Russia or China with 800 military bases around the world?

How about no one? There are other ways to prevent that. No need to waste all that money in the military, and make others do the same. A better way is to stop invading other countries and trying to control the world and instead help them develop so they don't become dependent on others. I know, scary. They might all become socialists or something. Then help countries in a region cooperate between themselves economically and militarily. Doesn't mean they have to like each other. But if there is a military threat, they can more easily deal with it and other challenges.

I agree with u. Russia, China, USA.. it`s pretty much the same. They are trying to control and take as much resurces as they can. But with recent activities around the world i believe there will be more and more military and guns, and it is sad cause i think there is enough space for everyone to enjoy in pleasures of life.

[jacee]

It's the countrys' way of colonializing and taki g over a single country. Example for this is my own country. I personally don't like the idea of the Americans being here pretending they will bring support and all but behind all this is their agenda to control or worst take over the government and people.

[Possum577]

They are trying to control and take as much resurces as they can.

It's the countrys' way of colonializing and taki g over a single country. Example for this is my own country. I personally don't like the idea of the Americans being here pretending they will bring support and all but behind all this is their agenda to control or worst take over the government and people.

This is pretty bold and completely untrue. The US gov't doesn't take resources (otherwise they wouldn't be in so much debt!) US and foreign corporations take resources, which aligns with their purpose as a business.

If the host countries don't like they could always tell the US to piss off - we don't want your trade deals, your protection, your import tariff payments, etc. The fact is that other governments enjoy perks from these deals. The foreign citizens don't, but the governments do.

I think it's pretty f'd up that the US has bases every where, it often breeds resentment for the US from the people that end up growing up in the shadow of these bases or war ships.

Why don't other countries tell the US no? -Think about that seriously...

[Nemo1024]

Would you rather it be Russia or China with 800 military bases around the world?

How about no one? There are other ways to prevent that. No need to waste all that money in the military, and make others do the same. A better way is to stop invading other countries and trying to control the world and instead help them develop so they don't become dependent on others. I know, scary. They might all become socialists or something. Then help countries in a region cooperate between themselves economically and militarily. Doesn't mean they have to like each other. But if there is a military threat, they can more easily deal with it and other challenges.

Funny how edric immediately insinuates the opposite.

My answer would have been approximately the same as Gronthaing. Having about 10 bases around the world at strategically important points is one thing, having 800 is a completely different story. Russia has a handful of bases, on the approaches to Russia, and anything above that would be lethal to the country both economically and in the way of international image.

@Possum: The problem is that US government and business interests of the US corporations are so fused, the only way to describe such governance is "oligarchy". In that light, yes, the resources are being funnelled from the controlled countries. It's just that they never reach the common American citizens. Moreover: "US taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States"

From the article:

 While bases may be costly for taxpayers, they are extremely profitable for the country’s privateers of twenty-first-century war like DynCorp International and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. As Chalmers Johnson noted, “Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries,” which win billions in contracts annually to “build and maintain our far-flung outposts.”

 Meanwhile, many of the communities hosting bases overseas never see the economic windfalls that US and local leaders regularly promise. Some areas, especially in poor rural communities, have seen short-term economic booms touched off by base construction. In the long-term, however, most bases rarely create sustainable, healthy local economies. Compared with other forms of economic activity, they represent unproductive uses of land, employ relatively few people for the expanses occupied, and contribute little to local economic growth. Research has consistently shown that when bases finally close, the economic impact is generally limited and in some cases actually positive—that is, local communities can end up better off when they trade bases for housing, schools, shopping complexes, and other forms of economic development.

As for why other countries don't tell US no? It's a vicious circle. Some countries tried. Lybia. Syria. Iran. Cuba. Telling no implies independent governance. If the government of the country with the bases is a Manchurian Candidate, then no "no" will be forthcoming.

[apollofire]

This is really surprising. 800 Military bases around the world is too much. Thats why US is called as Super Daddy.

How much money is required to maintain so many bases? Why not to spend the money for healthcare and welfare of people.

[n2004al]

I must tell only thanks. All those expenses for the freedom in the world !!!! Naturally that United States has their interest in having all that military bases all around the world but these interests all the same with the nations and peoples where those have posted.

[bryant.coleman]

The American war machine is dying a slow death. Their recent misadventures in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq has cost them trillions of USD. The federal debt is ballooning without any control, and as the US Dollar loses it's position as the world's reserve currency, the Americans will find it more and more hard to sell their debt.

[Chef Ramsay]

This is really surprising. 800 Military bases around the world is too much. Thats why US is called as Super Daddy.

How much money is required to maintain so many bases? Why not to spend the money for healthcare and welfare of people.

How about just spend money on neither and let the productive members of society keep the money they earn to make better lives for their families which will foster a much better economy for the lower classes among us. If you're able bodied, then you have no excuse to not be working at something and I don't mean shelling out more kids for the productive to foot the bill for. Granted, the fascist oligarchy and their government and media pimps have helped rid the US of true middle class and other upwardly mobile jobs for those that desire them. DC needs their budget slashed w/ a meat cleaver ASAP. That's where Rand Paul for President comes in. If people want to see this happen, then donate to his campaign.

[Nemo1024]

PS: Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concerns with regard to American plans of modernising their nuclear arsenal in... Germany. It reminds that since 90s Russia reduced its tactical nuclear arsenal by 4 times, while US nuclear warheads remain in Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Turkey.
http://regnum.ru/news/polit/1976071.html

[Gronthaing]

^ don't know if that is really bad for Russia. What is the point of having a very large stock of nuclear weapons when the destruction to all sides from a small scale nuclear war would still be so large? And not only from the explosions but the long term side effects too. Better to use the huge amounts of money they cost to maintain somewhere else. And keep only a few spread out as deterrent. Let americans bankrupt themselves with something they can't use.

[Leina]

Wonder how the pentagon manage to coordinate such a massive asset.

[ThePrinceofTea]

Wonder how the pentagon manage to coordinate such a massive asset.

Simple: God, Country, Family.

if others human decided to become people, adopt the us constitution and bills of rights, apply them better than in the mainland (easy to do right now), there wouldn't be a single basis even in the usa.

However when we see putin, assad and friends (including eurotrash) bent on destroying the spirit of the us constitution, making plants illegal, imposing tax, restricting freedom of speech, in short playing their little pharaoh, the risk of maintaining the Imperial Army (aka wall street force) is cheap compared to the risk posed by it.

have you ever asked yourself what is the exponentialest form of an army? some would say the space fleet that does starless night... however if you go one step further, you get to a naked human baby backed by God.