Why does the us have overseas bases

Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Why does the US have military bases around the world?

Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Bases around the world. Troops in Poland. Next Up In Video. Delivered Fridays.

Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. After all, there are only a limited numbers of locations that can support tanks, armored vehicles, field artillery pieces, and thousands of soldiers — especially in heavily populated places like Europe. Above all, rotational forces trade the vulnerability of large overseas bases for the risks of needing to flow forces through a handful of air and seaports.

Moreover, whatever additional risk there is needs to be weighed against a host of other operational benefits that favor forward basing. As a rule of thumb, deploying a single unit ties up three units — one deployed, one getting ready to go, and another recovering from having gone. By contrast, stationing a unit abroad relieves this pressure and increases readiness, since units can train, operate, and maintain their forces in one location.

Living overseas also can be an attractive lifestyle option for servicemembers and an added incentive to join, or remain in, the military, whereas frequent deployments away from family can harm retention. Above all, forward basing keeps forces nearer to a potential fight and can allow them to respond quickly in the event of crises. In sum, the survivability of overseas bases points to the need to harden these facilities, not divest from them entirely.

Finally, there is a claim that permanent stationing is unnecessarily provocative. There is a thin line, however, between provocation and deterrence. And yet, it is hard to see why permanently stationing forces would be that much more provocative than rotating forces through a given location, particularly on a continuous basis, or building a capability for rapid global power projection.

If anything the latter may even be more destabilizing, since it reduces adversary warning timelines. For the moment, the incoming Biden administration seems less enthused with cutting forces from Germany. That said, there will likely be downward pressure on defense budgets thanks to the COVID pandemic.

And if history is any precedent, overseas basing will be an attractive, politically expedient target to reap potential savings. Such a move, though, would be a mistake. While the merits of basing in Germany versus Poland, or in Japan versus Guam, should be open to debate, the underlying twin logics of deterrence and reassurance behind permanently stationing American forces overseas remain operationally, economically, and strategically as sound as ever.

Raphael S. Image: U. Army National Guard Photo by Sgt. Megan V. Because of American promises to fight for Israel, U. That would have brought us into another desperate quagmire in the Middle East, which is frankly the last thing we need.

Some argue that bases allow rapid military response. But modern military technology has significantly reduced the problems of travel times over long distances. The bottom line is that troops can deploy to virtually any region fast enough to be based right here in America.

But even this misses the point. Despite the habitual threat inflation in our politics and punditry , the world is increasingly peaceful , and the U. Contact us at letters time. By John Glaser.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Related Stories. Already a print subscriber?