WHY AMERICA IS DESPISED THE WORLD OVER
Antony Loewenstein links approvingly to an expose by retired historian Chalmers Johnson that reveals the "facts of life" of why America is "despised the world over":
The official inventory of "bases" cited by Johnson (Department of Defense, Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2005 Baseline) lists the following United States overseas military facilities: 16 large installations, 22 medium installations and 699 small installations/locations. Only a small minority of these facilities can be considered "bases' in the accepted sense. In everyday use a base is a military installation with significant support facilities, for example, retail outlets. The Army Air Force Exchange Service, operator of base/post exchange stores (size varying from corner shop to department store) and other military retail outlets worldwide, currently has facilities on bases in more than 30 countries outside the United States. The Navy Exchange operates in far fewer countries. Johnson is therefore way off the mark to claim the United States has bases in more than 130 countries.
Even a casual reading of the Base Structure Report shows Chalmers grossly exaggerated the number of U.S. bases abroad. The report lists 38 countries as having military installations/locations -- although the report almost certainly fails to list some sensitive military facilities, 38 countries is a far cry from 130 plus. Also, many of the listed facilities are quite small: the one man Yumurtalik Petroleum Products Storage Annex near Yumurtalik, Turkey, for example, is far from base-like. Finally, some 630 of the 737 military "bases" are located in just five countries (South Korea, Japan, Italy, the UK and Germany -- Germans might be shocked to learn that they host to over 300 "bases"). It is therefore impossible to come up with anything near 130 countries with "bases" -- subtracting 630 from 737 leaves room for only 107 unaccounted for "bases".
Chalmers' claim that many foreign U.S. "bases" are in countries "presided over by dictatorial regimes" is also bogus. The only base-hosting countries possibly qualifying as undemocratic are, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Cuba and the Trucial Oman Coast.
Interestingly, both Loewenstein and Chalmers are best-selling authors. It just goes to show you, quality and quantity are two separate things.
Note: the figures cited above may not be totally accurate but should be pretty close.
As a continuation of my own analytical odyssey, I then began doing research on the network of 737 American military bases we maintained around the world (according to the Pentagon's own 2005 official inventory). Not including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, we now station over half a million U.S. troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and others on military bases located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
The official inventory of "bases" cited by Johnson (Department of Defense, Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2005 Baseline) lists the following United States overseas military facilities: 16 large installations, 22 medium installations and 699 small installations/locations. Only a small minority of these facilities can be considered "bases' in the accepted sense. In everyday use a base is a military installation with significant support facilities, for example, retail outlets. The Army Air Force Exchange Service, operator of base/post exchange stores (size varying from corner shop to department store) and other military retail outlets worldwide, currently has facilities on bases in more than 30 countries outside the United States. The Navy Exchange operates in far fewer countries. Johnson is therefore way off the mark to claim the United States has bases in more than 130 countries.
Even a casual reading of the Base Structure Report shows Chalmers grossly exaggerated the number of U.S. bases abroad. The report lists 38 countries as having military installations/locations -- although the report almost certainly fails to list some sensitive military facilities, 38 countries is a far cry from 130 plus. Also, many of the listed facilities are quite small: the one man Yumurtalik Petroleum Products Storage Annex near Yumurtalik, Turkey, for example, is far from base-like. Finally, some 630 of the 737 military "bases" are located in just five countries (South Korea, Japan, Italy, the UK and Germany -- Germans might be shocked to learn that they host to over 300 "bases"). It is therefore impossible to come up with anything near 130 countries with "bases" -- subtracting 630 from 737 leaves room for only 107 unaccounted for "bases".
Chalmers' claim that many foreign U.S. "bases" are in countries "presided over by dictatorial regimes" is also bogus. The only base-hosting countries possibly qualifying as undemocratic are, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Cuba and the Trucial Oman Coast.
Interestingly, both Loewenstein and Chalmers are best-selling authors. It just goes to show you, quality and quantity are two separate things.
Note: the figures cited above may not be totally accurate but should be pretty close.
posted by Anonymous at 6:51 PM |
2 Comments:
Your numbers are generally correct, JF, based on my memory of such things.
But I wonder if a lot of those German "bases" are in the process of being transferred back to the Germans, since the overall US strength there is something less than 40K or so, plus dependents (there was a link to a good summary of the troop draw down there, forget where it is, too lazy to Google).
And sometimes thoses "bases" are little more than a rented building in the middle of a city. Check out Baharain in that report: It shows 986,632 SF of buildings owned by DoD, with another 854,434 SF leased by DoD.
Also, if you look at the breakdown in Germany, you'll see an example of "facility" definition. There are some 5 entries for Baumholder, and I believe that at least 3 of those sites are located within a few miles, if not adjacent, of each other. Effectively, that's one "base", physically separated, but mutually independent.
It all depends on what your definition of "base" is, eh?
Excuse me, I meant "mutually DEPENDENT". That's what you get for typing in a hurry.
Post a Comment
<< Home