Offered for discussion without comment

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

I count 69 foreign bases including Guantanamo as MAJOR military installations. However "DOD’s overseas bases include some 800 locations ranging in size from radio relay sites to major airbases." as read on http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n15mil.html

http://benefits.military.com/misc/insta ... rldMap.jsp


The areas that cater to military bases both advance and suffer from their presence. there are places in Germany where there's no on post housing and families have to live off base. this obviously provides additional income for those who are renting the houses out, but then when locals need housing in the area I wonder how readily available it is to them, as people know the military gets paid X amount for housing allowance each month and it comes in the 1st and the 15th faithfully AND they can get their money if the tenant decided to screw them out of rent or deposits or such. This comes back close to home where those that need housing can't find it because of others in the area (around here it's college students who can get housing, but not single families, they're relegated to apartments, in some parts of other countries it's military who can and locals or younger folks who cant).

My parents lived in Japen in the early 70's and they felt their presence was generally frowned upon by most of the people who weren't working on the base. those who did work on the base were open, friendly and helpful but the second you stepped outside the base there was hostility and resentment. any country may be free to ask the military to leave at any point in time, but then what are they also losing as far as alliances go ? Maybe more then they bargained for.

[Kulaf]

Hence the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It's going to be interesting to watch the next 20 years unfold as China becomes a much more dominant player in the world. Personally I am glad I will not be alive when we are all left to their tender mercy as world hegemon.

[Partha]

Except, of course, that that won't be the case, as they will be counterbalanced by the EU, Russia, India, and the US.

[Ddrak]

If a foreign state invites US military presence, it's not an invasion Dd. You drank the koolaid man. The foreign nation also gets some sort of benefit, otherwise they wouldn't allow a US presence on their soil. Your whole premise falls apart right there.

Just for reference, I'm playing out the argument because it's actually a pretty interesting theory.

The primary benefit for the foreign nation is that you are good buddies with a strong economic and military force, and don't have to provide the same level of funding for your own defense.

Pine Gap is definitely an interesting point in Australia. Of course, it's way out in the middle of nowhere (unlike the bases in Japan and Germany) so it doesn't quite attract the same attention, but there's a bunch of bad taste surrounding it and it always leads to anti-American feeling among the locals. The whole concept of it being US jurisdiction to the point where Australian law really isn't in effect within its borders is a little irksome (if one US soldier murdered another on the base, it wouldn't end in an Aussie court for example).

New Zealand isn't that interesting a case - it really isn't that strategically important. If South Korea decided to ask the US to leave, or more importantly if Iraq did the same, how quickly do you think that would happen?

Remember - my point is that it's not as much in US interests to have those bases on foreign soil as you'd think. You're generating more grass roots anti-US feeling than you're actually providing benefits in the long term, and it's been part of the downfall of pretty much every empire in history.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

If a foreign state invites US military presence, it's not an invasion Dd. You drank the koolaid man. The foreign nation also gets some sort of benefit, otherwise they wouldn't allow a US presence on their soil. Your whole premise falls apart right there.

Just for reference, I'm playing out the argument because it's actually a pretty interesting theory.

The primary benefit for the foreign nation is that you are good buddies with a strong economic and military force, and don't have to provide the same level of funding for your own defense.

Pine Gap is definitely an interesting point in Australia. Of course, it's way out in the middle of nowhere (unlike the bases in Japan and Germany) so it doesn't quite attract the same attention, but there's a bunch of bad taste surrounding it and it always leads to anti-American feeling among the locals. The whole concept of it being US jurisdiction to the point where Australian law really isn't in effect within its borders is a little irksome (if one US soldier murdered another on the base, it wouldn't end in an Aussie court for example).

New Zealand isn't that interesting a case - it really isn't that strategically important. If South Korea decided to ask the US to leave, or more importantly if Iraq did the same, how quickly do you think that would happen?

Remember - my point is that it's not as much in US interests to have those bases on foreign soil as you'd think. You're generating more grass roots anti-US feeling than you're actually providing benefits in the long term, and it's been part of the downfall of pretty much every empire in history.

Dd

Strictly from a US policy projection point (with which I don't always agree.. just taking the opposite position here).. we don't fucking care what the blowback is, as long as US interests are protected. That's the whole point of the expense and negative exposure of bases on foreign soil. The benefit outweighs the drag.

Having said that, you must admit the US does not impose itself on foreign soil without express permission from the ruling government (again, Guantanamo and current wars excepted). If any ruling government were to ask us to leave, the US would leave. If SK said "ya know, we think we can handle this" we would leave. Absent a war or Guantanamo, the US citizens would stand for no less.

As for New Zealand.. it WAS strategically important, otherwise the US wouldn't have been there in the first place, and we wouldn't have tried hard to convince NZ to decide otherwise. But in the end, we left, and we withdrew our support from NZ in the case of a war on their soil, as is only fair.

Regarding the base in Oz.. you still haven't answered my question. Your premise was that a base on foreign soil was an invasion. Do you still feel that way? Is the US invading Australia? And if so, why did you work so hard to get a Visa to work in the invading country?

[Ddrak]

Strictly from a US policy projection point (with which I don't always agree.. just taking the opposite position here).. we don't fucking care what the blowback is, as long as US interests are protected.

Exactly - which is pretty much Chomsky's point. As long as US interests are served, the US will happily treat the world as it's personal playpen.

I'm really not as confident as you are of the US removing bases from foreign soil if asked - particularly in sensitive areas like South Korea or Japan. The only way I could imagine the asking would take place is if there was significant anti-US sentiment in the area, or if a markedly anti-US government came into power. I would imagine the bases would quickly become new Gitmos in those situations - after all that's probably what's in the US military's best interests, right?

Trust me - NZ isn't strategically important unless you want to corner the sheep market...

A base on a foreign soil is a friendly invasion - there's no question. Does it feel like an invasion to have an area of your own soverign territory ceded by your government to a foreign military to the point where your own laws don't even count inside that area any more? Absolutely, and that's why governments don't like letting many foreign military bases on their own soil, ally or not. Most US bases are relics of the cold war where the world was asked to essentially choose between the lesser of two evils.

Why did I work so hard to get a Visa - because I can happily draw a distinction between US foreign policy and military policy and my desire to see the world and meet people of different cultures. Despite having reservations about your taste in leaders (Republican or Democrat) over the last 20 years, it doesn't mean I don't like you on a more personal level.

Besides - when I came over in March '01, the US economy was waaaay better than the Aussie one. Once I was there, moving back was an expensive proposition and I didn't really get the chance to seriously contemplate it until I was given a damn nice severance package when they closed the Pittsburgh office. It was never our plan to stay in the US until retirement, but we sure as hell enjoyed our time being there. Sometimes it's just not "home" though... I have no doubts any American would feel the same way after 7 years in this nutty nation.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well.. if you mean by "invasion"... a group of something appears that wasn't there before, like an "invasion" of tourists or an "invasion" of thoughts, well.. ok I guess.

But if you mean by "invasion" a hostile force intent on seizing and/or controlling assets to effect regime change within the foreign soil, then no.. American bases on foreign soil, existing with the express permission of the ruling government are not an invasion.

And your hypothetical argument about SK or Japan is specious. In fact, the US has agreed to reduce troops in Okinawa, turning that area into more of a forward asset storage base, and less of a "boots on the ground" base. This was at the request of the Okinawan Prefecture. A 20% reduction in personnel was the agreed upon number, if I recall.

And really, Dd.. do you think the US would force themselves on an ally? If, Japan said "get the fuck out", do you really think we'd employ military force stay there... eseentially going to war with Japan to occupy their soil?

Get real. Stop drinking from the same punh bowl as Partial, Klaster-fuck and Luke-warm.

[Ddrak]

I definitely didn't mean a "hostile force". I guess you could say it was more like an "invasion of tourists" or "invasion of illegal immigrants".

Do I think the US would force themselves on an ally? No. That was essentially what I was trying to say in my last post - the only way the bases would be forced is if the country in question first ceased to be an ally and possibly allied themselves with an opposing bloc. Something like what happened in Cuba.

Tying the two comments together, the bases feel like an invasion in the sense they are a military force that could be readily employed if the sovereign nation decided to ally themselves with a group that was opposed to US interests. In that sense, the bases are a projection of force to be used against the host nation's current enemies while they are allied with the US, or to use against the host nation if they ally against the US.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well...

Name one country that couldn't overwhelm the US bases should they so chose to do so. All military bases are positioned within countries that have a standing military force. If any one of those countries decided to forcibly evict the US presence, there isn't much that we could do to stop it, absent a full scale war with the ruling government, and probably involving nukes, which we won't do. (If we were going to use nukes, we'd already have used them on Cuba, which lacks the ability to respond in kind)

Bottom line... the US isn't anywhere where we are aren't asked to be (again, for the likes of Partial, Klasterfuck and Lukewarm, this doesn't apply to current active military engagements or Guantanamo) Hell, we fuckin' backed off on New Zealand... if NZ can "force" us to back off by just saying so, and they don't have a substantial military force.. why do you think we complied with their request? We were there for a reason. We backed off because we respect the rights of the NZ government.

Answer: Because they requested it, and that was good enough for us, although, we withdrew from the mutual protection agreements, as is fair.

If NZ didn't mean anything to US interests, it would have been treated like, oh, I don't know... Trinidad and Tobago? Non-consequential entites on the world stage (for now). No military presence, no port of call. Nothing.

Fact is... NZ's punt of nuclear powered vessels hurt us. It takes more resources now to patrol the waters around the Antarctic. It's the subs they effectively shut out, and the subs are key to patrolling large areas of water not monitord by satellites. And as I'm sure you're aware, satellites can only cover that area on an intermittent basis, due to the nature of the orbits of satellites. Denying US subs a port of call close to the Antarctic hinders our ability to rotate troops and resupply the boats. I know you THINK NZ wasn't a player, but in truth, it was. Not for it's resources, but for where it is positioned. Much like Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is just a rock in the middle of the ocean, but it's vital to US Naval interests. It doesn't have a cohesive military force (unless you count the turtles), and it is onlyimportant because of where it's at related to the rest of the world.

Same with NZ. Do we really think the face-painting cannibals on that island will be the US's staunchest allies in case of a world conflict? No.
But we sure would have liked to use their soil as a staging ground. And the fact that we left when they asked, should help you beleive we are invited guests, until the ruling government chooses otherwise. If it "feels" like an invasion force, then you should take it up with the representatives of your government, who obvioulsy feel otherwise.

[Ddrak]

Attacking a fortified base, particularly one that is able to be supported by the US Navy isn't exactly a trivial matter. If it were, do you really think Gitmo would still be there? Not sure what you mean about nukes, but most nations the US has bases in lack the ability to respond with them...

It's also a bit of a stretch to say the US was "asked" to be somewhere. More like the US asked for a base and the local government permitted it in return for concessions from the US in other areas. Note also that there never was a military base in New Zealand and the base in Australia is actually CIA controlled, not strictly military as such.

Your claim that NZ is necessary to patrol the Antarctic is somewhat strange - first satellite coverage of any part of the globe is no harder than any other part - after all the place is a sphere. Secondly, Australia has ports just as far south as New Zealand does (Hobart is further south than Wellington, and Melbourne isn't far off). Not entirely sure what you're so keen on patrolling the Antarctic for anyway - sounds like busy work to me these days.

What's most interesting is you do get my point after all - "If it "feels" like an invasion force, then you should take it up with the representatives of your government, who obvioulsy feel otherwise." People do this all the time, in fact, it's usually not a good idea for most governments to side too much with the US or they get voted out in a hurry - even governments of allies (*cough* Howard *cough*). While the bases have a military purpose, they play at odds with the US's political interests because they slowly turn nations against the US, and as a result the governments also turn against the US. That's not a good long term strategy.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I disagree that the only outcome of a long standing base on foreign soil is a growing dislike for the country with the base. It's one possible outcome, to be sure, but not the only outcome. I point to the significant number of bases in western europe as an example. I don't see a lot of animosity against the US from Spain, GB and Germany.

[Partha]

*cough* Socialist government in Spain *cough* Tony Blair ousted over the Iraq war *cough*

[Embar Angylwrath]

*cough* Socialist government in Spain *cough* Tony Blair ousted over the Iraq war *cough*

"cough" Spain still not asking US to leave "cough" new government in GB still not asking US to leave "cough" Partha still a moron "cough"

[Ddrak]

I disagree that the only outcome of a long standing base on foreign soil is a growing dislike for the country with the base. It's one possible outcome, to be sure, but not the only outcome. I point to the significant number of bases in western europe as an example. I don't see a lot of animosity against the US from Spain, GB and Germany.

There's plenty of it there - governments have to be very careful how much they appear to be going along with US wishes because one of the better ways to get voted out is to look like a US lackey. While the whole Iraq mess is by far a more significant factor, since the end of the cold war and the "USA or USSR" decisions, nations have been sliding away from the US, particularly in Western Europe. Look at the difficulty the US is having lately making NATO do pretty much anything that's more in US interests than European interests when 40 years ago the US could virtually dictate policy to Western Europe.

Dd

[Partha]

*cough* Socialist government in Spain *cough* Tony Blair ousted over the Iraq war *cough*

"cough" Spain still not asking US to leave "cough" new government in GB still not asking US to leave "cough" Partha still a moron "cough"

Does any of those things mean that anti-US sentiment isn't rising in those countries? Or will you dodge again?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sentiment for and against the US rises and falls all the time. However, the bases there are not the cause of the sentiment. They tend to be a focal point, just like embassies, when people feel they need a place to demonstrate against US policies.

Same thing applies to US companies. The companies don't cause the resentment, they just are the places where people direct anger and frustration.

I've never said all the world wants to reach out and give us a big global hug. What I am maintaining, is that bases on foreign soil don't really add anything meaningful to a countries perception of the US.

[Partha]

Oh really.

Tell the Okinawans that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

pssst.. hey Partha... Okinawa isn't a country.

[Ddrak]

What I am maintaining, is that bases on foreign soil don't really add anything meaningful to a countries perception of the US.

I disagree, but it's a pretty subjective measure. I would have called them more a catalyst than a focal point.

Dd

[Partha]

pssst.. hey Partha... Okinawa isn't a country.

You mean the actions of the base in Okinawa doesn't hurt Japanese opinions of Americans? That what you're saying?