By the end of the First World War, the United States had solidified
itself as an emerging global power until finally asserting itself as the
world’s dominant ascendancy in the aftermath of World War II. From 1945
and over the course of the next fifty years, the U.S.’s sphere of
influence would continue to expand its global network of military
installations in order to curtail Soviet influence. Now, nearly three
decades following the USSR’s collapse, there are still 800 formal U.S.
bases across eighty countries worldwide. Not only is this unacceptable,
but it is also needlessly wasteful. Since 2001, close to $6 trillion has
been spent on wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. The
utility of the empire’s foreign military infrastructure is simply not
worth the cost required to sustain it; therefore, the number of bases
worldwide should be strategically reduced to only those installations
that are essential to defending the homeland and protecting
international commerce.
Though the USSR no longer threatens liberal hegemony, U.S. foreign
policy is still rooted in a Cold War mindset. While an official plan for
base realignment and closure was presented in the 1990s under President
Bill Clinton, only a select few installations were shut down; most were
simply repurposed and assigned to deter other perceived threats to U.S.
primacy. However, very few of these installations actually do much to
help secure the homeland. In fact, this was not even their original
intended purpose! They were designed to defend liberal hegemony, which
is no longer the centralized bloc it once was. While American primacy
may have made logical sense in the post-war era, in order to halt the
spread of communism (although that too has been subject to debate),
there is no longer any practical need for the extent of its power to be
so expansive.
Today, the single largest concentration of U.S. foreign bases is
located within the eurozone, where there exist roughly 300 military
installations. Since 1942 the U.S. has maintained a permanent presence
in Europe and, after the Second World War, played a significant role in
stabilizing the continent, which would go on to serve as the key focal
point for NATO. Since then, the EU has become incredibly
self-sufficient; the combined European armed forces and nuclear arsenals
are more than capable of deterring potential threats without the need
for U.S. assistance. Every major European nation is wealthy enough to
afford its own defense. It is therefore strategically useless for the
U.S. to maintain such a gargantuan military presence in the EU, whose
members are already among America’s closest allies.
Having more military bases does not automatically create more
deterrence. The U.S. currently has several dozen forward operating bases
in the Middle East, hundreds of smaller outposts, and a combined
garrison of over 30,000 military personnel. If deterrence were a
certainty, then a force of that magnitude would be able to ensure
stability in the region. Having more soldiers does not equate to more
stability; more likely is that there is a maximum threshold of marginal
utility. Depending on how one chooses to define a “military
installation,” the U.S. currently has somewhere between four and nine
bases in Iraq. In a country that size, having, say, seven bases and nine
thousand soldiers is no more effective than having only three bases and
three thousand soldiers. The U.S. armed forces possess a far greater
technological advantage over other militaries as well. This means that
fewer soldiers are thus required for an occupation to be successful.
Regarding defense of the homeland, a high-tech defense system would be
enough to deter potential aggressors; bases and outposts on islands
throughout the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans would be the only
foreign installations needed in order to supplement that.
While the purpose of military occupation is to produce deterrence,
such endeavors often have the exact opposite effect in contrast to the
intended result. It often makes a population more wary and resentful
toward the occupying force. Attempts to exhort hegemony have undermined
the sovereignty of some countries, resulting in the rise of reactionary
elements that oppose Western influence. The rise of ISIS, for example,
was something that happened largely in response to the invasion of Iraq.
Additionally, Russia expanded into Georgia and Ukraine partially in
retaliation to NATO expansion.
As of 2024, the national debt sits at nearly $35 trillion. The
military budget accounts for close to 15% of all U.S. federal spending,
and since 2016, over $600 billion has been spent every year on “national
defense” alone, making it the largest of all discretionary budgets at
nearly 50%. Up to $120 billion of this is spent on the upkeep of foreign
bases, and an additional $70 billion on contingency operations. Even if
just half of all nonessential U.S. bases were closed, the United States
would save billions of dollars — money that would better be allocated
toward paying off the national debt, a third of which is owned by
foreign entities such as China. If America cannot afford to sustain its
own military, then there is no reason for her military to be that large.
Unrestrained militarism and high levels of deficit spending have
contributed to the demise of countless great powers throughout history.
Having a military is important, but it is also important that the U.S.
only finance what it can afford; this requires relegating spending to
focus on funding only the essentials. The simplest way to start would be
by closing foreign bases that are of no importance to national defense.
A common concern among interventionists is that base closure will
create power vacuums in unstable regions; this, they argue, leads to
more violence and war, especially in the Middle East. A popular belief
is that the military does not just deter U.S. adversaries but its allies
as well. Without America to keep them in check, it has been argued,
nothing would stop even Western-aligned authoritarians from violating
human rights or invading other countries. While closing bases in Europe
would be an effective means of cutting spending, some argue against
doing so, as these bases provide the U.S. military with quick and easy
access to Eurasia in case there were ever need for intervention.
Geopolitical primacy is not necessarily a byproduct of military
supremacy; in order to remain an influential superpower, all America has
to do if she is to remain a powerful world power is to place a primary
focus on the defense of its immediate sphere of influence and securing
economic interests.
The extent of America’s presence in the Middle East (if anything)
would pragmatically best be relegated to only a handful of
installations. Finally, the United States European Command’s area of
responsibility should be reduced to encompass only a fraction of its
current size, both in relation to the number of U.S. bases there are and
the percentage of military personnel that are currently stationed in
the eurozone. If the U.S. is to maintain a presence at all, there should
not be any more soldiers stationed than are needed to sustain a
pragmatically formidable presence. Other than that, there is little need
to maintain such a vast network of military installations around the
world; not only are many of these bases relics of a bygone era, but they
are also a serious drain on resources and taxpayer dollars.
The current trajectory of American imperialism is, ironically,
counterproductive to the perpetuation of the empire itself. Military
supremacy is inherently unsustainable and is an inadequate premise upon
which to assert international hegemony. American internationalists would
do best to recognize that it can only survive if it is restrained. If
America hopes to remain a superpower, it can no longer afford to
cannibalize its economy in the name of wanton imperialism.
