With weak and pliant neighbors to its north and south, vast oceans to its east and west, and a superior nuclear deterrent, it has achieved a level of protection from external threats without parallel.
The United States accounts for almost 40 percent of worldwide defense spending and possesses the most capable and sophisticated military in history. A forward-deployed military posture is useful, if decreasingly so, for a grand strategy of primacy, which posits that the United States, as the most powerful and righteous state, has the capacity and the obligation to maintain military bases throughout the world to uphold global peace and stability in an otherwise dangerous international system.
Most Read Articles
But primacy does not yield strategic benefits commensurate with the costs and risks it imposes. Alternatively, a grand strategy of restraint holds that the preeminent power of the United States, coupled with an increasingly peaceful world, means it can afford to pull back from its worldwide military presence and rein in its activist foreign policy.
Instead, the U. This section will make the case for withdrawing the U. Europe is the simplest case for the withdrawal of U. One of the most stable regions on the planet, Europe contains four great powers—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Russia. Conflict between any of them is unlikely. Great Britain, France, and Germany are all liberal democracies and have advanced, peaceful relationships based on closely aligned political, diplomatic, and economic interests. That statement does not apply to Russia, but the United Kingdom and France possess nuclear weapons, making military conflict even in the event of deteriorated relationships extremely unlikely.
In Europe especially, the costs of conflict, even in a conventional war, have become prohibitive, while the gains have greatly diminished.
- Pierre; or The Ambiguities;
- Managing Growth in Americas Communities: Second Edition.
- Most Popular.
In addition to the declining utility of war, Europe is politically and culturally unique in the extent to which the memory of the devastation of the world wars has contributed to the decline of militarism and a greater focus on social stability and economic well-being. Even in a pure balance-of-power analysis, none of the major states of Europe is strong enough to make a bid for regional hegemony, something nuclear weapons make essentially impossible.
Russia, the regional power that generates the most calls for a U. That objective has been achieved and an American exit from the military alliance is overdue. And bases in Europe do not provide much of an operational or tactical advantage for the United States, even for unlikely contingencies, meaning that even if Washington upheld its current set of security commitments there, it could fulfill those obligations with a dramatically reduced overseas presence. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, , terrorism has risen to the top of the list of national security priorities.
Vast sums of money, considerable manpower, and a slew of new base sites abroad have been devoted to fighting Islamic terrorist groups. However, contrary to the bulk of the rhetoric from policymakers, terrorism does not represent an existential threat to the United States. And a forward-deployed military posture is not very useful in addressing it.
Indeed, U. In most cases, a sensible military solution to terrorism does not exist, and heavy-handed military action can exacerbate the problem by fueling resentment and recruitment. The traditional justification for U.
But the argument that maintaining such a military posture in the Middle East protects the free flow of oil is flawed. Fortunately, the United States is relatively insulated from price spikes associated with supply disruptions. These market adjustments mitigated the ramifications of the shocks and stabilized prices and supply. The balance of power, both in the region and globally, is favorable for energy security.
The threat of an external power gaining a foothold in the Persian Gulf region is not in the cards in the policy-relevant future. China, although increasingly powerful in its own sphere, lacks the political will to dominate the Gulf. Regionally, the circumstances are similarly advantageous. This is true even if the United States withdraws completely.
None of them possesses the capabilities necessary to conquer neighboring territories or gain a controlling influence over Persian Gulf oil resources. In addition to being too weak to make a bid for regional dominance, all three are bogged down and distracted by internal problems. Overall, the region is in a state of defense dominance: the major states are too weak to project power beyond their borders, but they do have the capability to deter their neighbors. Deterrence works well in this environment because the costs of offensive action remain prohibitively high.
Some scholars argue that the decreased importance of Persian Gulf oil means the United States should completely phase out its military commitment to the region during the next 10 years.
- Tartarin de Tarascon Adaptation théâtrale (FICTION) (French Edition);
- The Truth About Rudolf Hess!
- U.S. Overseas Military Presence: What Are the Strategic Choices?.
- The Sweet Life (Heart Fiction);
- SEGURIDAD DEMOCRATICA Y TLC: EN LA BUSQUEDA DEL SUEÑO AMERICANO (Spanish Edition)?
- Debating US Military Strategy in the Persian Gulf: What is the Way Forward?;
- The Kings Assassin;
The United States can rely on carrier-based airpower and long-range bombers if military intervention in a crisis becomes necessary. It is meant to deter and contain China, to stave off spirals of conflict, to bolster the credibility of security agreements that bind the United States to defend allies, and to provide for a rapid contingency response.
Nor is China a viable candidate for hegemony in the near term. Brooks and William C. Pacific fleet conducting exercises and training events with more than 20 allied countries in the region every year.
The other reason to reevaluate the U. In the near term, careful retrenchment would likely have a favorable influence on U. Even if the United States were to maintain its commitments to allies, withdrawing the military presence from the region would allow allies to be the first line of defense in case of war, forcing the countries to do the heavy lifting, while America plays the role of balancer. If the United States were to withdraw from the regions described, there is a reasonable argument for keeping U.
Strategically located in the Pacific Ocean, Guam is the nearest sovereign U. This location means that the Guam base is useful for decreasing transit times in case of any unlikely contingencies in which U. Submarines operating at 20 knots take about 5 days to reach the East Asian littoral from Guam, whereas they take about 8 days from Hawaii and 15 days from San Diego. A Guam-based brigade combat team could deploy by air or sea to key Asia-Pacific areas in a span of 5 to 14 days.
Ships cruising at 25 knots from Guam can arrive at the Taiwan Strait in about two and a half days, not much longer than the one day they take from the Philippines. That extra distance from the East Asian littoral also means Guam is less vulnerable to Chinese and North Korean missiles. Because Guam is a U. Plans are already under way to increase the military presence at Guam by relocating troops from Japan, thanks to a agreement with Tokyo meant to resolve intense local opposition to U.https://hencdeglifeare.tk
U.S. Overseas Military Presence
As part of that overall shift, Guam is being further developed as a logistics hub to enable forces in Asia and serve as a base for at-sea prepositioning and air defense capabilities. Guam, therefore, serves as a convenient location for a low-cost, fully capable military base that avoids the strategic baggage of in-place forces on foreign territory. Diego Garcia, a small island in the Indian Ocean, offers similar advantages without the liability of most other forward-deployed bases. It is approximately 1, miles south of India, miles southwest of Sri Lanka, and 2, miles southeast of the Persian Gulf.
U.S. overseas military presence :What are the strategic choices?
Diego Garcia has limitations as a basing hub. It is only 11 square miles, with an average land elevation of only 4 feet, meaning it cannot necessarily host large Navy platforms. According to Walter C. Afloat Prepositioning Force occupies the lagoon; fast attack submarines and surface ships use the deep-draft wharf; an Air Expeditionary Wing supports tactical and long-range broadcasts to units in the area; and a telecommunications station tracks satellites and relays fleet broadcasts to units in the area.
Facilities at Diego Garcia are not and should not be designed for deterrence and reassurance objectives; they merely provide proximity to strategic areas for any potentially serious contingency requiring U. Diego Garcia is far enough afield to be much safer from attack by long-range ballistic missiles and poses a negligible risk of entangling the United States in elective conflicts or creating host nation complications.
Despite the bipartisan support for extensive overseas bases, there is some interest in reform.
The Tragedy of the American Military
In , Sen. The George W. The same logic holds today. Those interests, combined with the ideological belief that forward deployment is the cornerstone of a stable world order, result in scant political incentive to propose even partial withdrawal from overseas bases. To the extent that overseas bases are intended to prevent war and manage faraway disputes through deterrence and reassurance, they serve outdated foreign policy objectives and a grand strategy that needs to be narrowed.
On top of that, modern technology has reduced the problems of travel times over long distances and simultaneously has increased the vulnerabilities of in-place forces.
Related U.S. Overseas Military Presence: What Are the Strategic Choices?
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved