One of the most ubiquitous aspects of modern society is the American military presence in far-flung places around the world. To truly grasp the extent of this phenomenon, one only needs to glance at the numbers – over 770 bases and installations, along with over fifty other US-funded sites, all costing the taxpayer $150 billion annually.
How did this come about? It is not as though these sites popped up overnight. Three moments have contributed to the US military presence we have today; the Spanish-American War, the Second World War and 9/11.
In the nineteenth century, the Spanish-American War materialised. This was caused by America’s provision of support to liberate the local people of Cuba, who were being oppressed by particularly brutal means whilst their home remained a Spanish colony. Interestingly, the conflict took place largely in the Caribbean and the Asia Pacific – places to which neither of the warring parties claimed original heritage.
A major precipitating event leading to the War was the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine under contentious circumstances. US President William McKinley strongly opposed the actions of the Spanish, yet he was also against any direct action against them. Following the sinking, a Spanish inquiry concluded that an internal explosion had destroyed the ship; however the American investigation claimed it was an external source. Nevertheless, the incident can be seen as a crossroads that gave the impetus for the Americans’ involvement in their neighbour’s struggle against Spanish occupation.
When compared to the average length of American involvement in conflict throughout history, the Spanish-American War was relatively short – it lasted just over eight months. Yet, the ensuing events were profound for the country’s imperialist ambitions. The result was the establishment of coaling stations – coal repositories for refuelling navel vessels operating at the time, located in faraway places – and naval outposts in Guantanamo, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. The outpost in the Philippines served as a significant outpost during the Vietnam War. Ultimately, the move signalled the beginning of American military expansion.
The most noteworthy period of US military intervention overseas was at the conclusion of the Second World War. It started with a deal made between the UK and the US in which the UK traded six of their Caribbean colonies for some fairly run-down US destroyers. In the same year, the US also took control of former Danish bases in Greenland and Iceland. The logic behind building and controlling bases in such locations was partially to discourage the Germans from doing so. Interestingly, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US neither built nor expanded bases in the Asia Pacific region. This was largely based on the assumption that in doing so, they would provoke the Japanese into entering the War – a completely different approach to that which they applied to the Germans.
By 1945, the US had 30,000 installations spread throughout the world. Comparatively, the Soviet Union had virtually no bases outside of Eastern Europe. The Russians only began establishing bases outside of their localised region in the 1970s, when they prioritised expansion into Africa and the Indian Ocean region.
Whilst US President Harry Truman was intent on maintaining bases gained during the war, many were closed by 1949. Understandably, many of the host countries did not want a foreign military presence affecting their sovereignty. On the home front, the necessity of a large military for this expansion was obstructed by domestic pressure. Additionally, the need for supplementary locations had declined due to the longer flight ranges of aircraft at the time. Nevertheless, the Truman Doctrine of 1947 demonstrated a foreign policy stance that moved towards an interventionist approach.
At the conclusion of the Second World War, the US occupations of Germany and Japan were justified by the common threat: the Soviet Union. Once the threat had dissipated, however, the legitimacy of US military bases in these countries became questionable, even though they currently hold some of the largest numbers of military bases and personnel.
Photo credit: United States Navy.
The most recent event, referred to as ‘a watershed, a historical turning point of grand and irreversible proportions’, was 9/11. The threat of religious extremism was now seen as the motive behind maintaining an overseas presence. Unfortunately, the blowback had been costly, both in terms of casualties and the money spent on these operations by the US Government.
The current US Administration’s position on foreign military installations can best be described as ‘mixed’. Let us consider the case of Japan. Whilst on the campaign trail, President Trump claimed the US ‘cannot go around subsidising Japan, which is a behemoth economically with the cars and everything’. This contrasts the tone set by the President during a visit to Japan in late 2017. Donning a military-style bomber jacket, Trump exclaimed to hundreds of American troops that they have his Administration’s support ‘to fight, to overpower and to always, always, always win’. To the outside observer, the Trump Administration’s stance on overseas US military bases is consequently somewhat unclear.
The Trump Administration, and those before it, have legitimised any dubious actions overseas by negotiating and enacting favourable agreements with countries the US chooses to occupy. Status of Force Agreements (SOFAs) are documents that specify what the military is authorised to do in each country. They legitimise the doctrine of imperialist expansion, whilst also usually giving US soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed and environmental damage caused.
The need to defend unethical conduct is due to the fact that the environmental, social and economic impacts of the US military sites have been enormous. A myriad of examples show the environmental effects of these installations. Producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined, the US Department of Defense reported there are 30,000 contaminated areas in need of attention, covering over nineteen million acres in the US alone.
The impact of US military bases on foreign soil is just as dire as in the US itself – from the dilapidated underground storage tanks in US bases in South Korea contaminating soil and water supplies, to the extremely high prevalence of cancer in the Marshall Islands after nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s. In both cases, there is substantial evidence of blatant disregard for the local communities these bases occupy.
More recently, the impact of US military action in Iraq has resulted in the desertification of more than 90 per cent of Iraqi territory, transforming the country from one that is a food exporter into a country that imports more than 80 per cent of its food.
Diego Garcia, a British colony occupying an area of seventeen square miles in the middle of the Indian Ocean, has also met the shameless indifference of US military power. Between 1968 and 1973, American officials colluded with their British colleagues to remove the indigenous Chagossian people, making every effort to hide their actions from governments, the United Nations and the media. The Chagossian people were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they received no resettlement assistance. To this day, Chagossians still struggle in places many think of as exotic tourist destinations.
At this point, we are merely scratching the surface of the origins of US military installations overseas, and the extensive damage they cause. Considering all of this, the question remains – why do they still exist? Shortly before Obama was sworn in as President in December 2008, he proclaimed that, ‘to ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad [it is vital to maintain] the strongest military on the planet’. It followed the rhetoric of his predecessors, maintaining that war is the status quo and should remain unaltered. If one were to examine the massive increase in military spending, there is no surprise that some theorise that the US is in a deliberate perpetual state of war. The fact that these bases also have psychological dimensions as symbols of American status and power is a factor that cannot be disregarded.
It seems as though Eisenhower’s concern of the Military-Industrial Complex is panning out to be somewhat prophetic.
Fred Johnston is a freelance writer from Central Australia who loves writing about topics to which he can add value. Say hello to him on Twitter at @FreddyKuma.