Share

How to Deal With America's Empire of Bases: A Modest Proposal for Garrisoned Lands

by: Chalmers Johnson  |  TomDispatch.com

photo
Pakistani soldiers view rubble following the bombing of the Pearl Continental Hotel in early June. (Photo: Emilio Morenatti / The Associated Press)

    The U.S. Empire of Bases - at $102 billion a year already the world's costliest military enterprise - just got a good deal more expensive. As a start, on May 27th, we learned that the State Department will build a new "embassy" in Islamabad, Pakistan, which at $736 million will be the second priciest ever constructed, only $4 million less, if cost overruns don't occur, than the Vatican-City-sized one the Bush administration put up in Baghdad. The State Department was also reportedly planning to buy the five-star Pearl Continental Hotel (complete with pool) in Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to use as a consulate and living quarters for its staff there.

    Unfortunately for such plans, on June 9th Pakistani militants rammed a truck filled with explosives into the hotel, killing 18 occupants, wounding at least 55, and collapsing one entire wing of the structure. There has been no news since about whether the State Department is still going ahead with the purchase.

    Whatever the costs turn out to be, they will not be included in our already bloated military budget, even though none of these structures is designed to be a true embassy - a place, that is, where local people come for visas and American officials represent the commercial and diplomatic interests of their country. Instead these so-called embassies will actually be walled compounds, akin to medieval fortresses, where American spies, soldiers, intelligence officials, and diplomats try to keep an eye on hostile populations in a region at war. One can predict with certainty that they will house a large contingent of Marines and include roof-top helicopter pads for quick get-aways.

    While it may be comforting for State Department employees working in dangerous places to know that they have some physical protection, it must also be obvious to them, as well as the people in the countries where they serve, that they will now be visibly part of an in-your-face American imperial presence. We shouldn't be surprised when militants attacking the U.S. find one of our base-like embassies, however heavily guarded, an easier target than a large military base.

    And what is being done about those military bases anyway - now close to 800 of them dotted across the globe in other people's countries? Even as Congress and the Obama administration wrangle over the cost of bank bailouts, a new health plan, pollution controls, and other much needed domestic expenditures, no one suggests that closing some of these unpopular, expensive imperial enclaves might be a good way to save some money.

    Instead, they are evidently about to become even more expensive. On June 23rd, we learned that Kyrgyzstan, the former Central Asian Soviet Republic which, back in February 2009, announced that it was going to kick the U.S. military out of Manas Air Base (used since 2001 as a staging area for the Afghan War), has been persuaded to let us stay. But here's the catch: In return for doing us that favor, the annual rent Washington pays for use of the base will more than triple from $17.4 million to $60 million, with millions more to go into promised improvements in airport facilities and other financial sweeteners. All this because the Obama administration, having committed itself to a widening war in the region, is convinced it needs this base to store and trans-ship supplies to Afghanistan.

    I suspect this development will not go unnoticed in other countries where Americans are also unpopular occupiers. For example, the Ecuadorians have told us to leave Manta Air Base by this November. Of course, they have their pride to consider, not to speak of the fact that they don't like American soldiers mucking about in Colombia and Peru. Nonetheless, they could probably use a spot more money.

    And what about the Japanese who, for more than 57 years, have been paying big bucks to host American bases on their soil? Recently, they reached a deal with Washington to move some American Marines from bases on Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. In the process, however, they were forced to shell out not only for the cost of the Marines' removal, but also to build new facilities on Guam for their arrival. Is it possible that they will now take a cue from the government of Kyrgyzstan and just tell the Americans to get out and pay for it themselves? Or might they at least stop funding the same American military personnel who regularly rape Japanese women (at the rate of about two per month) and make life miserable for whoever lives near the 38 U.S. bases on Okinawa. This is certainly what the Okinawans have been hoping and praying for ever since we arrived in 1945.

    In fact, I have a suggestion for other countries that are getting a bit weary of the American military presence on their soil: cash in now, before it's too late. Either up the ante or tell the Americans to go home. I encourage this behavior because I'm convinced that the U.S. Empire of Bases will soon enough bankrupt our country, and so - on the analogy of a financial bubble or a pyramid scheme - if you're an investor, it's better to get your money out while you still can.

    This is, of course, something that has occurred to the Chinese and other financiers of the American national debt. Only they're cashing in quietly and slowly in order not to tank the dollar while they're still holding onto such a bundle of them. Make no mistake, though: whether we're being bled rapidly or slowly, we are bleeding; and hanging onto our military empire and all the bases that go with it will ultimately spell the end of the United States as we know it.

    Count on this, future generations of Americans traveling abroad decades from now won't find the landscape dotted with near-billion-dollar "embassies."

    --------

    Chalmers Johnson is the author of "The Blowback Trilogy" - Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis (2006), all published by Metropolitan Books. Check out a TomDispatch audio interview with Johnson about the U.S. Empire of Bases by clicking here.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Mr. Johnson, Truthout

Mr. Johnson, Truthout readers: what about this idea? Create a world-wide coordinated movement to evict the US military bases. A lot of pressure needs to come from the outside. It's difficult to refuse a demand to leave from a sovereign nation. There are too many special interests here for an American movement acting on its own. For the sake of everyone, Americans included, this empire needs to be shut down.

As I recall, when Bush took

As I recall, when Bush took office, we had 500 bases which I thought were about 475 bases too many. So if my calculations are right, Bush added about 300 bases, or about 300 too many. So what does that come out to - about 3 or 4 bases for every country in the world?

Yes, this madness needs to

Yes, this madness needs to end. The U.S. military budget should be slashed in half, at least. Imagine the increases for education and health care for such appropriations from making war to making a healthy society - hold that thought and right to your congressional representatives, family, friends, newspapers, blogs and any media you can use. Empires fall by stretching too far and bleeding to death - and though I wish I didn't think it necessary to label the United States as an empire, we surely are. It must end, hopefully through peaceful measures.

It's true that most U.S.

It's true that most U.S. military bases overseas are Cold War relics that should be repatriated back to their host countries. But the vitriol that Mr. Johnson is uncorking here is hardly justified. The bases that he would have close (Okinawa) are valuable forward staging areas for conflict. Yes, the U.S. military creates problems that are highly magnified in the news media, both local and in the U.S. But does he consider how much money flows into the local economies as a result of those bases? The Japanese government pays for the relocation of U.S. Marines because it was worked out that way. Most of the land utilized on Okinawa was given/leased/whatever to the U.S. because of the terms of surrender in WWII. That's a bit different than the situation in Kyrgyzstan. What is needed is another BRAC session that will take a look at those overseas locations. Close what is no longer needed; that's fine. But don't expect that we should pack them all up and go home. That's not realistic.

Material is often just left

Material is often just left in place when a base is abandoned. When we bring the people home, what will they do? In the meantime, China and the United Arab Emirates can afford to brain-drain the U.S. with dollars they have stockpiled. Wild, disciplined U.S. scientists make good additions to teams in places where the education systems produce discipline but little wildness. What's more, only a few U.S. people understand the moves of China and Abu Dhabi toward new energy paradigms. Those few guys are unlikely to get press in the U.S. The U.S. government will be blindsided because its minions hang with top corporate guys wanting subsidies for themselves. Mini-cultures here and there are going to be in on new initiatives cumbersome to pioneer in the U.S., where ancient monopolies trundle on like left-over defense machines from a weird Star Trek planet. I pray Obama starts to get it, as Wangari Maathai seems to have in Kenya, and faces down the bullies with tree-planting, before our forces kill themselves at higher rates than already and our land turns to desert.

Come on guys, give us a

Come on guys, give us a break. How many of you have actually lived, worked, or served in these areas? The embassy staff work 24/7. Fellows I worked with were seldom home for Christmas. Somalia was a small post and the embassy there was originally in rented quarters when I first arrived. Then we built, for Somalia, this humongous compound. As things get tough, as they usually do in the nations we work in, we eventually need protection. Why not have it from the start?

Please tell me, Harry

Please tell me, Harry Thomas: for what potential conflict would our bases on Okinawa be "valuable forward staging areas"? The Vietnam War? (Been over for a while; maybe you didn't get the memo.) An invasion of the Japanese home islands? (Not bloody likely unless our national relationship with Japan takes a sharp turn for the worse.) Liberating Australia from the unidentified but vaguely Asian invaders in John Marsden's "Tomorrow, When the War Began" series? (Okay, now I'm just being sarcastic.)

I am willing to bet Chalmers

I am willing to bet Chalmers Johnson has never set foot on Okinawa. Rapes of Japanese women by American servicemen on the island do NOT average two per month. I lived there for nine years and I know that to be a fact. And if you show me an Okinawan that wants the U.S. to leave, I'll introduce you to one that wants them to say. It may well be that the U.S. should withdraw its forces from Okinawa, but from what I can tell, Mr Johnson has little of worth to say on the matter. Frankly, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I am willing to bet Chalmers

I am willing to bet Chalmers Johnson has never set foot on Okinawa. Rapes of Japanese women by American servicemen on the island do NOT average two per month. I lived there for nine years and I know that to be a fact. And if you show me an Okinawan that wants the U.S. to leave, I'll introduce you to one that wants them to say. It may well be that the U.S. should withdraw its forces from Okinawa, but from what I can tell, Mr Johnson has little of worth to say on the matter. Frankly, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Sometimes I think the US

Sometimes I think the US military has an allergic reaction to fear, that is over sensitive, overly defensive and aggressive against all that it imagines might be a threat. I also think the military industrial political complex has become a kind of racket self justifying its staying power by how much its become the major means of production and livelihood. On the other hand, I think the world at large is working out a global defense system, and the US military consciousness is somehow identified with that. Is the US entirely an agent for good? Not always. But it may be among the least "bad" of the bullies. Still, those with greater power bear great responsibility. And ambassadors of kindness may have better effect than military aggressors.

It feels to me that the

It feels to me that the nation of US has a mind of its own in terms of furthering its military presence around the world. And I, a lowly citizen, have little say in the matter. How is it that citizens tend to be at the effect of their government? Representatives become rulers quite beyond the voice of the people.

Austin, I served on Okinawa

Austin, I served on Okinawa for over three years with the Army in the late 1980s as a public affairs specialist/military journalist. I had a lot more to say about this article, but I was trying to keep it under 300 words. However, since you asked, I'll reply with a question of my own: Have you been keeping up with events in North Korea or Afghanistan lately? We have a lot of troops in South Korea, but if the Dear Leader gets it into his head that an attack on the southern half of the peninsula, mainland Japan or even Hawaii is required to fulfill his notions of diplomacy, a forward deployed spot such as Okinawa will become significant. And with President Obama ramping up action in Afghanistan (like it should have been done in 2001, but that's another rant), we're going to need established posts to store materiel and men.