Without ample overseas bases, US will lose significant power 

In 1940, Winston Churchill declared Singapore safe. It was “not considered possible that the Japanese ... would embark on such a mad enterprise.” When the Japanese arrived in February 1942, Singapore fell in a week.

“The man in the street had been led to believe that Singapore was an impregnable fortress upon which the safety of Australia, New Zealand and India depended,” wrote British historian Maj. Gen. S. Woodburn Kirby. “This belief had been rudely shattered.”

The loss of Singapore was devastating for the Brits. Japan intended its attacks on Pearl Harbor and U.S. bases at Subic Bay to drive America out of Asia, much in the manner it had rolled back British power by taking Singapore.

The Imperial navy understood then what many in Congress don’t seem to get today: Global bases are an essential part of being a global power. In May, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., wrote to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

“Given the U.S. military’s advanced technology and the capability of our forces to deploy throughout the world from stateside bases, I believe there may be added value in further reducing our foreign basing footprint.”

Since then, many have echoed Tester’s view. But U.S. overseas bases are not “piggy banks” to be cashed out to help balance the budget.

For starters, it is fiscally naive to propose defense cuts as a budget-balancing tool. Absent significant reforms to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the feds would still be bankrupt in 40 years.

Defense investments ought to rise and fall on their own merits. And few U.S. investments give a better return on the dollar than overseas bases.

The notion that U.S. overseas bases are a Cold War leftover is largely a myth. Case in point: Europe. At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. closed many of its European bases, and more are slated to go. But while we’ve been closing some bases, we’ve also been opening or expanding others — adapting the overseas footprint to enable the military to defend U.S. interests. Bases in Europe, for example, now primarily serve as staging areas to project American forces elsewhere.

When it comes to dealing with two-thirds of our national security problems, the U.S. ships, planes and soldiers based in Europe are in a good position geographically.

In many cases, host countries pick up a significant part of basing costs. South Korea, for example, pays almost half the cost of basing U.S. troops there.

Bases enable the U.S. to get somewhere and stay there at a reasonable cost. U.S. fighter aircraft, for example, need repair parts every few days. Having parts and maintenance facilities at hand is dramatically cheaper than running back to the U.S. every time a plane needs to be fixed, rearmed or refueled.

Geography matters. If the U.S. did not have global bases, it would need twice as many ships, planes and troops to cover the same missions. We’d have to build additional bases here to house all those resources, and we’d still need to send them halfway around the world to get to the problems they’re asked to solve. That is simply unaffordable. Cutting bases is anything but an exercise in military efficiency.

Without global bases, the U.S. will no longer be a global power. It is just that simple.

James Jay Carafano is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation.

About The Author

James Carafano

Pin It

Speaking of Opinion, Op Eds

More by James Carafano

Latest in Guest Columns

Monday, Oct 24, 2016


Readers also liked…

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation