Why does the US need more than 725 overseas bases?

Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:55 PM



> Source:
> LewRockwell.com
> http://www.LewRockwell.com
>
> Why All the Foreign Bases?
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/baker1.html
>
> March 17, 2006
>
> by Sam Baker mailto:InMyEmptyRoom@yahoo.com
>
> On May 14, 2005 the Associated Press reported Bulgaria's announcement
that
> it
> would provide three new military bases to the US. General James
Jones, the
> top
> commander of US and NATO troops in Europe, said that he would propose
to
> the US
> Congress "four or five Bulgarian military facilities for use by US
> forces." More
> recently, the US announced plans for new bases in Romania.
>
> Why does the US need new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania?
According
> to
> Chalmers Johnson, in his book "The Sorrows of Empire," America
already
> possesses
> more than 725 overseas bases. This incredible estimate comes from two
> official
> sources: The Department of Defense's "Base Structure Report," and
> "Worldwide
> Manpower Distribution by Geographical Area." Johnson claims that the
> figure is
> actually an underestimate, because many bases are "secret" or
otherwise
> not
> listed on official books. As an example, Johnson quotes several
sources
> who cite
> at least six US installations in Israel which are either operating or
are
> under
> construction.
>
> During the Cold War, it was argued that the US needed forward basing
in
> strategic areas of the world to counter the Soviet position, and
contain
> Soviet
> expansion. But the US continues to aggressively pursue more bases in
> far-flung
> areas of the globe, despite the fact that the Cold War has been over
for
> more
> than a decade. American officials have explained that the new bases
in
> Bulgaria
> and Romania are part of a broader US strategy of shifting troops
based in
> Western Europe further east. In other words, now that the Soviet
Union has
> collapsed, America is aggressively expanding into its former sphere
of
> influence
> by recruiting former Soviet satellites into NATO, and garrisoning
them
> with
> bases and troops. In fact, since 9/11 alone the US has acquired at
least
> 14 new
> bases in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Persian Gulf,
and
> Pakistan, and was evicted from a recently procured base in
Uzbekistan.
> This
> figure does not include the newly-announced Bulgarian and Romanian
bases.
> Are we to believe that the US needs more military bases worldwide –
not
> less –
> now that the Cold War is over?
>
> Apparently so. Thomas Donnelly, an archetype neoconservative
militarist,
> recently published a pamphlet entitled "The Military We Need,"
available
> at
> http://www.aei.org/books/. Among other things, he argues for the
creation
> of
> "new networks of overseas bases," and a "semipermanent ring of
'frontier
> forts'
> along the American security perimeter from West Africa to East Asia."
In
> Counterpunch, Winslow T. Wheeler quoted Donnelly at a speech before
the
> neoconservative American Enterprise Institute as saying the US
"homeland"
> includes the area defined in the Monroe Doctrine. In Donnelly's mind,
the
> US has
> apparently already annexed the Caribbean and Central America.
>
> Since the end of the Cold War, the US has acquired a plethora of new
bases
> throughout the Persian Gulf. Some observers believe that these bases
were
> obtained to "secure" a strategic commodity – oil. While oil
security was
> certainly a main concern of the first Gulf War, US bases in the
Middle
> East are
> actually generating the very insecurity – in the forms of terrorism
and
> insurgency – that they supposedly exist to combat. Certainly, there
were
> no
> terrorist or insurgent attacks on Iraqi oil facilities before that
country
> was
> invaded, occupied, and garrisoned with US bases and troops.
Furthermore,
> Bin
> Laden cited US military occupation of Saudi Arabia as a key reason
for
> Al-Qaida
> attacks against US interests. Another problem with the "oil security"
> thesis is
> that America only had two permanent bases (both naval) operating in
the
> entire
> region during the Cold War, when the Middle East faced the threat of
> invasion by
> the Soviet Union – one in Bahrain, and the other on the Indian
Ocean i
> sland of Diego Garcia, 3340 miles from Baghdad.
>
> The invasion and occupation of Iraq is, of course, another
explanation
> offered
> for the buildup of US bases in the region. The question then becomes
why
> the war
> was necessary in the first place. One answer is that the US seeks
> dominance over
> the few "rogue states" in the area who refuse to follow dictates from
> Washington. Before the second Gulf War began, Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
> columnist Jay Bookman wrote "Why does the administration seem
unconcerned
> about
> an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't
be
> leaving.
> Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent
military
> bases in
> that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including
neighboring
> Iran." The bases Bookman portended have already been built, and Iran
now
> faces a
> likely referral to the UN Security Council.
>
> The invasion of Iraq wasn't the first occasion for US imperialism in
the
> region.
> In 1963, the CIA backed a Ba'athist coup in Iraq which resulted in
the
> assassination of then Prime Minister Abdel-Karim Kassem and many
others on
> a
> CIA-supplied hit list. These actions paved the way for Ba'ath
loyalist
> Saddam
> Hussein to assume direct dictatorship of the country by 1979. By the
early
> 1980's, the US had restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq, and
was
> providing assistance to Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. This
> assistance
> included, but was not limited to, intelligence information, monetary
> loans,
> weapons and munitions grants and sales (including helicopters which
were
> used to
> launch gas attacks on Kurds), and weapons-grade Anthrax bacterial
> cultures.
> Current and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flew to
Baghdad to
> meet
> with Saddam Hussein personally on at least two occasions during this
> period.
>
> In 1953, the CIA under Eisenhower backed a successful coup in Iran
which
> overthrew the constitutionally and democratically elected Mohammad
> Mossadeq –
> who had nationalized British oil interests – and installed an
American
> puppet,
> shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, or the "Shah of Iran." Upon taking power,
the
> Shah
> awarded American and British oil companies a 40% stake each in a new
oil
> consortium with the rights to pump Iranian oil. To protect their
puppet,
> and
> repress all dissent, the CIA assisted the shah in the creation of the
> brutal
> SAVAK – a secret police force with unlimited censorship,
surveillance,
> arrest,
> and detention powers. Under the shah's reign, SAVAK operated secret
> prisons,
> institutionalized torture, and murdered thousands of political
prisoners.
> Iran
> remained a US-sponsored totalitarian terror-state ruled by an
American
> puppet
> until the overthrow of the shah in 1979 and the ushering in of an
Islamic
> fundamentalist regime under the Ayatollah Khomeini.
>
> But US interests in the region are not limited to oil dominance or
> political
> control. It is no secret that a cabal of prominent neoconservatives
> operating at
> very high levels within the George W. Bush regime, but also within
the
> Pentagon,
> various quasi-governmental boards, think tanks, special interest
groups,
> and
> political magazines, long lobbied for the US to invade Iraq and
remake the
> entire Middle East over to suit Israel. These neoconservatives share
a
> passionate attachment to the Jewish state, and some have close
connections
> to
> the Likud party and Israeli leaders such as Ariel Sharon and Benjamin
> Netanyahu.
> The neoconservative agenda for Iraq was made abundantly clear in
various
> letters
> to the president and congressional leaders, as well as books,
articles,
> position
> papers, reports, and other publications written years before 9/11.
For
> instance,
> in July 1996, neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David
> Wurmser, and
> others wrote a position paper for Benjamin Netanyahu
> entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
Among
> other
> things, the paper advocated regime change in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
and
> Iran. And
> in a September 2000 report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
> Strategy,
> Forces, and Resources for a New Century," the neoconservative Project
for
> the
> New American Century wrote that they were waiting for a "catastrophic
and
> catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" to provide an excuse to
> execute
> their agenda. The two disasters which afforded them their opportunity
were
> the
> election of George W. Bush and the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
>
> But the involvement of neoconservatives in the decision to invade
Iraq is
> already well-known and well-documented, and a comprehensive analysis
is
> far
> beyond the scope of this article. The point is simply to illustrate
that,
> whatever the motives for the second Gulf War and virulent spread of
US
> bases in
> the region – domination of oil, subjugation and control of "rogue
states,"
> furthering Israeli interests, or "spreading democracy" for that
matter –
> these
> are imperial motives for imperial actions.
>
> In addition to building new bases, the US also continues to maintain
old
> bases
> and security guarantees throughout the world. Bases in South Korea,
half a
> world
> away, were built during the Cold War ostensibly to defend that nation
> against
> attack by North Korea. This was part of a broader effort to "contain
> communism"
> and stop the fulfillment of the "domino theory." But the bases and
troops
> remain
> despite the fact that the Cold War is over and communism is a dying
> ideology. In
> fact, the US has recently taken a more aggressive posture towards
North
> Korea,
> indicting it as a member of an "axis of evil."
>
> Interestingly, while the US is building new bases overseas, it is
closing
> bases
> domestically. No overseas bases are slated for closure by the 2005
Base
> Realignment and Closure Commission. Because private defense
contractors
> like
> Halliburton source foreign labor when performing overseas base
support,
> the US
> is now, in effect, outsourcing defense-related jobs.
>
> There is no great mystery regarding the US garrisoning of east and
central
> Asia,
> Japan, Eastern and Western Europe, Cuba, the Persian Gulf, and many
other
> areas
> of the globe with hundreds of military bases. The truth of the matter
is
> that
> America, "the world's only remaining superpower," is actually the
world's
> only
> remaining global empire. And as all empires do, it will continue to
expand
> until
> it is deterred by a rival power, or until it bankrupts the "homeland"
with
> imperial overstretch and wars. Indeed, the very term "homeland"
itself
> implies
> that there must be an associated "away land" component. This "away
land"
> is the
> US empire abroad.
>
> Is America really an empire? Empires have taken many forms throughout
> history.
> Empires based on one extreme – the Roman model for instance –
built their
> empires through outright annexation of conquered territories. The
English,
> French, Dutch, and Spanish based their empires upon the institution
of
> colonization. Dr. Ivan Eland, in his book "The Empire has no Clothes:
US
> Foreign
> Policy Exposed," has concluded that, structurally, the American
empire is
> modeled on another extreme – that of the ancient Greek city-state
Sparta.
> Sparta
> did not conquer and annex other peoples, with the exception of the
Helots.
> Rather, it used its superior military prowess to dominate allied
> oligarchic
> factions through its military alliance, the Peloponnesian League.
Sparta's
> de
> facto control over the foreign policy of the Peloponnesian League
gave it
> effective control over the foreign policies of the city-states
comprising
> the
> alliance. Sparta demanded that the city-states within its orbit
maintain
> their o
> ligarchic form of government, and it reserved the right to impose
this
> restriction by force. But Sparta did not micromanage the domestic
affairs
> of its
> alliance members on a day-to-day basis. In this regard, the Spartan
model
> of
> empire is one of "looser control" over states comprising an empire.
>
> Like Sparta, the US has de facto control over the foreign policy of
its
> military
> alliance, NATO. And presumably, the US would not allow an
objectionable
> form of
> government to take power in a key strategic ally. In fact, the US has
> sought to
> instigate or prevent regime change in many states it has wanted to
> control,
> whether strategic or non-strategic, allied or non-allied. Examples
include
> Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chile, Columbia, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Greece,
> Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran,
Iraq,
> Korea,
> Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Samoa, Serbia, Spain, Taiwan,
> Venezuela,
> and Vietnam, among others.
>
> But while the US empire resembles Sparta structurally, Eland points
out
> that in
> its offensive orientation it more closely resembles Athens. Sparta
was a
> defensive, status-quo power that did not seek to enlarge, control
> non-strategic
> non-allied states, or remake the world in its image. Athens did.
> Coincidentally,
> Athenians believed their divine calling in life was to "spread
democracy."
>
> The US has also employed other models in building empire. After the
> Spanish-American war, Hawaii, the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and
Guam
> were
> annexed outright, and the Philippines were subjected to an American
form
> of
> colonial rule not unlike that employed by European colonial powers at
the
> time.
> The advent of the Cold War hailed the superpower practice of spawning
> satellites
> and client states. The American empire really represents a
conglomeration
> of
> different approaches to empire building.
>
> In a sense, the American empire is worldwide. The US dollar, as the
> world's
> reserve currency, allows the US to tax other countries by issuing
> depreciating
> pieces of paper in exchange for real goods and services. Rome imposed
a
> comparable form of taxation by debasing its gold and silver coinage.
>
> There are two imperial schools of thought operating within the
American
> empire.
> The old globalist, Woodrow Wilson, New World Order Establishment,
> consisting of
> both Democrats and Republicans, prefers to disguise the iron fist of
> empire
> beneath a soft velvet glove of multilateralism, alliances, the UN,
and
> humanitarianism. The new neoconservative imperialists – comprised
of
> Republicans
> – care little for disguises, subtleties, pretenses, and diplomatic
> niceties.
> While not direct descendants, they are more similar in style to the
> unabashed
> Theodore Roosevelt school of imperialism. They prefer a more
unilateral
> approach
> to empire, brandishing a naked iron fist devoid of any velvet glove.
> Because
> they are unapologetic hawks – chicken hawks in fact, as they use
other
> people to
> fight their wars for them while they stack up deferments –
neoconservative
> imperialists seem to relish the thought of using imperial power with
a
> little
> more glee than their Wilsonian counterparts. Within the Repub
> lican party at least, and for the time being, the neoconservatives
are
> waxing
> and ascendant, and the old Wilsonian Establishment is waning. But it
is
> important to recognize that the differences between the two factions
are
> differences of order, rather than kind. There is no anti-imperial
> constituency
> of any remote political significance operating within the American
empire.
>
> But the mystery of American empire is a lesser conundrum to
contemplate.
> The
> greater mystery is why Americans have never questioned the fact that
their
> republic has become an empire. Americans, as a people, seem to be
quite
> uniquely
> ignorant in this regard, as every other empire in the annals of
recorded
> human
> history was known to be an empire by its own citizens. Thus it would
seem
> that
> Americans have earned quite a historical distinction for themselves,
> happily
> munching away on fast food while watching the latest reality TV
shows,
> completely oblivious to the world around them and to their complicity
in
> their
> own destruction.
>
> Samuel L. Baker is a Computer Engineering graduate of Auburn
University.
> He
> currently works as a freelance political analyst and commentator.