While the United States has remained adamant in its pursuit and expansion of power influence overseas and despite short-term wins, the ever-changing nature of international relations alongside political pressure both internally and externally have proven domineering obstacles which America is yet to breach. America has made strides in influencing global politics, such as the case with the occupation of various countries in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, among others).
- U.S. Military Presence around the World
In just a month after 11 September U.S. terrorist attacks, the American troops, supported by the German, British, Canadian, French, and Australia, invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Afghanistan ( Vick, 2015 ). It is almost two decades, the Global War on terror has grown to become an actual war on terror, with America having bases in more than 80 countries in all the six continents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
America today has a presence in about 40% of the world countries. The military has spent almost $1.9 trillion in fighting terrorism since 2001. The State Department, on the other hand, has spent more than $127 billion since 2001 to train the military, police, and border patrol agents in several states and to create antiterrorism programs ( Cooley, 2012 ). It ca be deduced that only a few countries have had a war, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Libya. Other areas with the American bases are mainly peaceful, and mainly military exercises and training are ongoing.
America has military bases across the world for different reasons. Immediately after the September 11 terror attack, Osama bin Laden was identified as the main perpetrator in Afghanistan. Osama was the head of Al-Qaeda. The radical Islamists, the Taliban ran Afghanistan, and they offered protection to Osama ( Katzman, 2003 ). The U.S. launched airstrikes in the country. The need to fight terrorism saw America set military bases in Afghanistan.
The American engagement in Pakistan was mainly due to the war on terrorism. Still, it is also related to the need for global and national security, nuclear proliferation, strategic and economic opportunities in South Asia, anti-Americanism, and democracy ( Ilias, 2010 ). For the last 17 years, America has maintained a military presence in Iraq. The American troops and bases present in Iraq began in 2003 with the US-led coalition invasion that saw the Saddam Hussein government's toppling. The need to maintain bases in Iraq emerged, as there were new forces interested in occupying Saddam's vacancy.
- U.S. Foreign Military Bases and Ethical Concern
The United States military bases surround the world. Almost two decades after the Cold War came to a halt, America continues to position its troops at nearly one thousand different locations in foreign countries. The American military bases are usually either overlooked or taken for granted, a rarely-notice part of the entire Pentagon operation. In his popular works' Base Nation', David Vine brings to light a better understanding of the ills the American military bases across the world causes the host countries ( Dufour, 2007 ). David emphasizes that instead of making foreign countries safer, the American countries make these countries less safe over the long-term.
According to David, the American military bases in foreign countries causes geopolitical tensions and enhances a widely-spread antipathy towards America. The foreign army bases also undermine the U.S. democratic effort, pushing the Americas into partnerships with dictatorial regimes and perpetuating a second-class citizenship system in regions like Guan. The military bases also promote sexual violence, destroy local economies, and the environment. Maintaining the American army bases in foreign countries costs the American tax payer's huge sums of money. Vine estimates that the foreign military missions on the bases approach about $100 billion annually.
The U.S. has several military bases in several countries globally, but there is no single country with its military bases independently operated by a foreign government in the U.S. land. The reason given for this is that America is the world superpower today and that it has military bases in other countries to promote security ( Kirk & Francis, 2000 ). It is also argued that the United States continued spreading its military bases across the foreign countries after World War II, and it is justified it continues doing so to deter the adversaries.
For several years, the need to have military bases in foreign countries was a quasi-religious American foreign policy proclamation. However, most recently, this traditional wisdom is continuously being questioned by the bipartisan coalition. With the American forces withdrawing from Afghanistan and ending a thirteen-year long war in the country, there is a need to review further the American military strategy in the foreign countries.
- Misconduct of U.S. Military Personnel
Irrespective of the reconciliatory effort between the South and North Korea, America declared that it would continue maintaining more than 100,000 soldiers in East Asia for the next two decades, even if the two countries were reunited. The Joint 2020 Vision, a planning document by the Pentagon, concluded that Asia would replace Europe as the primary focus of the American military strategy at the beginning of the 21 st century. The 2020 vision report also identified China as the next possible adversary. Instead of sending the American troops home and closing down the military bases after the Soviet Union collapsed, instead, the East Asians saw signs of a military determined more than ever remain intact and continue operation in the region ( Krepinveich , 2009).
With the American military maintaining its bases after the war ends, there has been reported lots of suffering of children and women in East Asia, including sexual violence, physical violence, and sexual exploitation by the American military. This is evident from the serious situation of the Amerasian children everywhere in the region ( Kamerling & Van Der Putten, 2011 ). Another major problem is that the army in the East Asian concept is just too militarized. It lacks the human rights for children and women and the physical environment protection.
The current American policy has some critical issues that need to be looked at. The American military personnel is trained to dehumanize other people as part of their war training. Their aggression, pent-up fashion, and fear are absorbed by the local communities, particularly children and women, through assaults, reckless driving, and military prostitution.
The SOFAs (Status of Forces Agreements) between America and the host governments guarantee the legal protection of the American military personnel and bases. Still, they do not protect the local communities adequately from the crimes committed by the American troops. The U.S. government does not accept any legal responsibility for cleaning up the environment of the bases.
The surrounding communities where the U.S. military bases are hosted view the troops as being insensitive and arrogant. The troops do not understand the local communities' culture or history, and they do not bother about creating any relations with the locals. The American troops in the foreign countries speak English, live in fenced-off enclaves, pay their ways with dollars, and are usually suspicious.
There is a need to revise SOFAs to protect the interest of the East Asian children and women from the American troops and protect the environment from military intoxication. There is also the need for Congress to pass the Violence Against Women Act II. This act includes provisions regarding American military violence internationally. The American immigration policy and the law need to be revised to recognize its responsibility to the Amerasian children. There is also the need to minimize the American military presence in East Asia and the military to clean their environment and bases at their costs. The military bases also need to be developed to benefit the local communities.
- American Power Unilateralism
Military objectives and their advantages
America's overseas operations are motivated by military objectives (the protection of the hosts), which come with varied advantages such as access to resources and strengthening the relationship with the allies (Davis, 2011).
Overseas bases are used as a beacon from which America can conduct its operations to identify potential conflicts that would influence its national security (Davis, 2011). With overseas bases, America can exert her influence over the hosts, thereby soliciting participation, which might be in the form of sharing critical information about the activities of other neighboring or allied governments.
The opposition to America's unilateral approach to power
Despite America's efforts to promote her influence overseas, it has been met with stern opposition from some of the hosts and their neighbors. Access to and the existence of relationships with other governments have impacted the hosts' attitude toward America's occupation ( Pettyjohn & Kavanagh, 2016) . On this account, the hosts' penetration to acquire some form of regional control appears bleak for America.
The advantages of allowing America to install military operational bases imply that the hosts have to respond in kind. Currently, America has bases in Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (Sun & Zoubir, 2016; Wallin, 2018). However, in these countries, some have allowed other superpowers, an example being Djibouti, which has relationships with France, Germany, Japan, and Italy (Sun & Zoubir, 2016). Within such a context, America's unilateral approach to power becomes weakened.
- Geopolitical Considerations
The role of geopolitical considerations.
Before establishing U.S. military bases overseas, America assesses the prevailing geopolitical factors within the target region. For instance, in Djibouti, America's presence has been, in part, due to the host government's perception of threat from its neighbors, namely Eritrea in the north and Somalia in the south (Sun & Zoubir, 2016). Therefore, America's occupation is an outcome of Djibouti's inability to manage or mitigate threats from hostile neighbors.
America follows particular criteria when choosing which country to establish a military base. Part of the requirements involves assessing whether a country is, for instance, a strategic partner that has a likelihood of being engaged in the intrastate conflict (Mahony et al., 2018). Within such a country, America deploys about 1,000 to 9,999 troops. Although they stay in such countries is temporary, America, nonetheless, incurs the cost of setting up and maintaining operations throughout the agreed or projected period (Mahony et al., 2018).
Attacks from adversaries
With overseas military occupation, America invites repression from adversaries who feel threatened or are mostly against Western influence penetration. For this reason, sudden attacks are most likely to occur, leading to loss of lives, among other consequences (Davis, 2011). The military advantage experienced following the establishment of bases overseas comes with the risk of attracting attention from hostile groups opposed to America's continued pursuit of global influence ( Cooley, 2005 ). Other costs of attacks are such as having supplies cut off while also prompting the federal government to withdraw or reinforce troops, processes that come along with financial burden.
- External and Internal Political Opposition
External political opposition
In some cases, U.S. military personnel have been involved in some kind of misconduct against the hosts. A good example is the protests that took place in Turkey in 2003. The U.S. military's attitude is noted to have been due to the occurrence of a heinous crime committed by American military personnel (Yeo, 2017). As a reaction to the locals' injustice, the Turkish political regime responded by demanding and pushing for a ban on U.S. military operations.
Turkey is just but one among other examples of cases whereby host governments have opposed U.S. military operations. It is essential to appreciate that these operations tend to have a spillover effect and could impact the political, economic, or even social standing of neighboring countries. Thus, to maintain relations with neighboring countries, the hosts' political pressure could undermine continued U.S. military operations.
Internal political opposition
Within America's political landscape, there are those in opposition to continued spending on overseas military operations. There are diversified sentiments toward the overall objective of maintaining such operations relative to the impact on national security. The conflict between those in leadership positions over, for instance, the manner in which operations should be conducted or how resources should be allocated poses a major challenge for America's overseas military activities.
The effect of overseas operations concerning the amount of money spent on these activities is also a major concern. For instance, the Department of Defense's budget for F.Y. 2019 showed that America had set aside $68.8 billion to cater to the military's contingency operations in overseas bases (Department of Defense, 2019). Those in Congress, alongside other interest groups, have and continue to express their concerns over the amount of money allocated to such operations, and if indeed they are vital.
- Ideological Shifts
Sudden shifts in international relations are prompting the development of new allied relationships .
For America, part of the benefits identified is the country's ability to improve its operational responsiveness to contingencies, assuring allies, and facilitating security while also deterring adversaries (Lostumbo et al., 2013). However, the various costs incurred stretch from the need to establish a high quality and efficient operational base for military personnel and exposure to political risks. As a result, they lead to the revocation of American access, prompting the DoD to depart from regions where huge investments have been made, alongside the risk of attacks from adversaries such as those using long-range precision-guided weapons (Lostumbo et al., 2013).
Whenever there is a shift in political ideologies, some countries will likely accept America's political or leadership philosophies. Therefore, as much as there should be the concern of some countries adopting political doctrines contrary to America's ideals, there is a chance that the outcome might be optimistic ( Blank, 2007 ). Nevertheless, sudden shifts in alliances have proven a significant challenge for the U.S. military's continued operation on overseas bases.
The pursuit of power for America is somewhat inflated
From an analytical perspective, one can argue that America's continued pursuit of power is inflated and cannot bring about the desired outcome. As the global political sphere is subject to the political events occurring in each state, it becomes challenging to ensure that America's unilateral approach remains effective in swaying allies in a particular direction ( Pettyjohn & Kavanagh, 2016) . The implication is that despite the need for strategic advantage, the developed world is somewhat misguided regarding this element of power, which has resulted in huge military investments.
America has little to no influence throughout events across the globe (Davis, 2011; Lostumbo et al., 2013; Pettyjohn & Kavanagh, 2016) . That being the case, the government cannot, whether through the military or other foreign relations strategic measures, control international relations' outcome to its favor.
Conclusion
The establishment and maintenance of U.S. military bases impose a financial burden on the taxpayer and invites reprisals from adversaries, thereby weakening the country's national security. However, overseas operations are advantageous as they increase the number of allies, which accords America various advantages such as considerable influence in target regions ( Cooley, 2012 ). Nevertheless, the drawbacks of a larger footprint in terms of overseas military bases should not be discounted.
For the various points discussed, it can be concluded that the projection of America's unilateral power has been met both positively and negatively in countries whereby military bases have been established. Despite geopolitical factors' motivation, America's overseas operations have been largely exposed to attacks from adversaries with contrary ideas. The existence of political opposition, both internally and externally, implies the lack of unity and efficiency in determining the purpose of overseas military operations. Shifts in political ideologies have resulted in making loyalty a volatile factor; hence, there is no guarantee for support or continued interaction even after military occupation. The race for power, among other superpowers, has made bleak America's pursuit for a unique global position, whether politically or economically.
References
Blank, S. (2007). US interests in Central Asia and the challenges to them . Strategic Studies Institute.
Cooley, A. (2012). Base politics: democratic change and the US military overseas . Cornell University Press.
Cooley, A. (2005). Base politics. Foreign Affairs , 79-92.
Davis, S. (2011). The US military base network and contemporary colonialism: Power projection, resistance and the quest for operational unilateralism. Political Geography , 30 (4), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.04.003
Dufour, J. (2007). The worldwide network of US military bases. Global Research , 1 .
Ilias, S. (2010). Iran's Economic Conditions: US Policy Issues . DIANE Publishing.
Kamerling, S., & Van Der Putten, F. P. (2011). An overseas naval presence without overseas bases: China's counter-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs , 40 (4), 119-146.
Katzman, K. (2003, October). Afghanistan: Current issues and US policy. Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.
Krepinveich Jr, A. F. (2009). The Pentagon's Wasting Assets-The Eroding Foundations of American Power. Foreign Aff. , 88 , 18.
Kirk, G., & Francis, C. B. (2000). Redefining security: Women challenge US military policy and practice in East Asia. Berkeley Women's LJ , 15 , 229.
Lostumbo, M., McNerney, M., Peltz, E., Eaton, D., Frelinger, D., Greenfield, A. V., Halliday, J., Mills, P., Narduli R. B., Pettyjohn, L. S., Sollinger, M. J., & Worman, M. S. (2013). Overseas basing of U.S. military forces: An assessment of relative costs and strategic benefits . RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR201/RAND_RR201.pdf
Pettyjohn, S. & Kavanagh, J. (2016). Access granted: Political challenges to the U.S. overseas military presence, 1945 – 2014 . RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1339/RAND_RR1339.pdf
Sun, D., & Zoubir, Y. (2016). The eagle’s nest in the Horn of Africa: US military strategic deployment in Djibouti. Africa Spectrum, 51 (1), 111-124.
Vick, A. J. (2015). Air base attacks and defensive counters: Historical lessons and future challenges (No. RR-968-AF). RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE SANTA MONICA CA.
Wallin, M. (2018). U.S. military bases and facilities in the Middle East . American Security Project. https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Ref-0213-US-Military-Bases-and-Facilities-Middle-East.pdf
Yeo, A. I. (2017). The politics of overseas military bases. Perspectives on Politics , 15 (1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592716004199
