"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest -- why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies; it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs."

American political and military leaders fear that President-elect Obama lacks “foreign policy experience.” He has no track record of supporting the American empire and its array of thousands of overseas bases and installations. As the nation faces bankruptcy and an economic depression, they fear he may question the need to spend over a $100 billion a year to maintain all these foreign bases against a vague host of enemies. Moreover, Obama may ask embarrassing questions about the rational for specific military bases, and thus threaten billions of dollars in annual spending flowing to powerful corporations.

Americans would be appalled if they knew of the resources devoted to maintaining military bases around the globe. They would also be shocked to learn that American Generals conspire to retain unnecessary bases because they provide interesting duty stations and an imperial flavor. They include lavish General Officer homes and military-run resorts. Generals have no concern about the costs involved because enjoying the perks and privileges of a General is their life-long dream. Their goal is to expand and improve “their” bases around the globe, and to thwart attempts to close anything. Misleading congressmen, civilian leaders, and reporters to preserve and expand their empire of bases is not only tolerated by fellow Generals; it is expected.

Since the end of the Cold war, American Generals have established bases in Hungary and Kosovo, and are building new bases in Romania and Bulgaria. These are justified as secure “Lilly Pads” so U.S. forces can jump into Middle East conflicts. In reality, Generals like to see bases on their maps that allow them to intervene anywhere for any reason. In addition, military bases provide American “intelligence” services with secure facilities where they can eavesdrop with electronic surveillance. They provide a nest from which agents can bribe, seduce, blackmail, and threaten local military and political leaders. Finally, bases provide a covert method of shipping people and material into and out of the host nation outside the control of its customs and immigration controls.

Generals found it impossible to justify new military bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, until someone invented the “missile defense” rationale. They convinced a paranoid President Bush that Iran may launch a nuclear-armed missile at Europe in the distant future. To counter this potential threat, Generals say they must build a missile defense site in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, despite the fact the U.S. military hasn’t the capability to shoot down long-range ballistic missiles. After spending over $160 billion the past three decades, the nation’s missile defense system can only shoot down a missile if its launch time, launch site, and trajectory are known in advance, and the target missile has a homing beacon so the interceptor can find it. Even with these unrealistic advantages, the interceptor missile malfunctioned or missed during most tests.[1]

There is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, or has the knowledge to miniaturize a nuclear device into a missile warhead. Moreover, no one can explain why Iran would launch a missile at Europe. A small nuclear device on a crude Iranian missile would probably fall in a rural area and kill just a few hundred people, if it exploded. The attack would be pointless, and then Iran would face massive retaliation.

The idea is so absurd that the citizens of Poland and the Czech Republic opposed American bases despite the economic benefits. Meanwhile, American Generals manufactured a crisis in the nation of Georgia, then wrongly blamed Russia.[2] This provided the necessary political cover to gain approval in those nations. The U.S. Congress was not consulted and base construction has begun. Russia fears that these “missile defense” silos may include offensive nuclear missiles, so it announced plans to target these new bases with its missiles, raising tensions throughout Europe.

Generals fear the Obama administration may stop this insane project. They began a propaganda campaign a week after Obama was elected. The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, who is retiring from the Air Force, told reporters that dropping the planned installation of missile defenses "would severely hurt" U.S. ability to protect against Iran's growing missile force. He said it would also undermine U.S. leadership in NATO, so it is important to continue work.[3]

It may be difficult for President Obama to explain the missile defense folly to the American people, but he could argue that Europe is just as wealthy as the USA, yet spends just one-quarter as much on “defense.” If Europe fears missiles from Iran, they should build and operate a missile defense system. The USA can sell them whatever technology and equipment they need. However, the Europeans would want proof that it works, which only sheds light on the overall missile defense racket.[4] As a result, one of the first steps President Obama should take after he assumes office is to cancel the expensive and bogus Poland-Czech military bases project disguised as “missile defense.”

In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress that reshaping the U.S. military's overseas base alignment makes sense because the Cold War is long over, and the move would allow the United States to better fend off its newest enemies. "We do not expect our forces to fight where they are stationed," Rumsfeld testified. "We know that our forces will need to move to the fight, wherever it is." Because the United States' global defense posture has been "virtually frozen in place" for 50 years, Rumsfeld said that a military that stresses agility and flexibility is now needed.[5]

Rumsfeld implemented a plan to shift most of the 73,000 U.S. soldiers and their 100,000 family members based in Germany back to the USA over ten years. This would free thousands of soldiers now committed to base support duties for infantry units. Rumsfeld was an experienced bureaucrat and knew that Army Generals would quietly rebel and stall the plan, so he appointed Marine Corps General James Jones as head of the European Command to prod the Army. After Rumsfeld resigned in 2007 and General Jones retired, Army Generals announced the drawdown was a bad idea and would end, leaving 65,000 soldiers. They now talk about the need to increase troop levels in Germany.

Army Generals spin out lies to justify these bases. They state that soldiers in Germany are closer to trouble spots in the Middle East. However, in recent years the Army learned that armored forces from the USA can deploy to the Balkans and the Middle East faster than those in Germany. Over 95% of armored forces must deploy by ship, so those in Germany were shipped by rail to northern German ports, then all the way around Spain and into the Mediterranean. One might assume they could deploy by rail or truck southward, but they cannot cross the Alps as several tunnels are too narrow and several bridges too weak for outsized equipment like M-1 tanks.  

Deploying eastward around the Alps requires cooperation with several nations with different gauge rail systems. They charge high fees and American trains can use rail lines only when not used by commercial rail. Once troops reach Mediterranean ports, all the forces must embark at small ports already crowded by normal commercial cargo traffic. All this assumes that each nation's government and rail and port unions approve of the American military deployment.

Generals claim that cities near Army bases in the USA haven’t the housing needed to accommodate the arrival of thousands of soldiers and their families. Given the nationwide housing slump and record foreclosures, any American community would welcome the arrival of military families from Europe to fill their empty houses. Generals claim that domestic bases haven’t room for a growing army and units from overseas. However, the Army was far larger two decades ago. The four base closure rounds closed just one significant Army base – Fort Ord.  

A third lie is that moving soldiers back to the USA would cost billions of dollars. Soldiers are sent to Germany on three-year tours, so moving them home during normal transfers cost nothing, while ending new personnel moves overseas saves money. The U.S. military doesn't just fly soldiers with hand-carried luggage overseas and back, but also moves their families, furniture, and even their cars and pets. In addition, military equipment is rotated back to the USA every few years for replacement, upgrades, and overhauls. Finally, the military need not clean up closed bases since they officially belong to the host nation. Needless to say, well-connected moving and shipping companies stand to lose billions of dollars and their lobbyists quietly oppose closing bases in the halls of Congress.

The fourth lie that Generals spread is that reducing American troop level will hurt NATO. They overlook the fact that NATO no longer has an enemy, so it is difficult to weaken the alliance. All other NATO nations wisely closed their bases in Germany a decade ago after the Warsaw Pact disappeared. If closer military relations are required, Germany can show gratitude for helping defend their borders during the Cold War. They could spend billions of dollars a year to build and maintain a series of military bases along the US-Mexican border to help turn back the million aliens who walk across each year. This would help maintain the alliance and reduce trade imbalances. Of course the Germans would laugh at this suggestion as an absurd waste of their money and manpower.

Last year, Congressional hearings were held about cost overruns relating to new construction at American military bases in Europe. Generals had convinced Congress that they needed hundreds of millions of dollars in new facilities in Germany, even while troop levels decreased. While Congressmen expressed alarm at rising costs, no one asked why the Army still maintained four combat brigades in Germany after 50 years of occupation duty, and over 10 years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved.

Combat brigades in Germany are routinely deployed to Iraq for 12-15 months. This process begins as thousands of soldiers in the USA and their families and household goods and cars are shipped to Germany for a three-year tour with a combat brigade. After weeks to settle-in, they begin training for the upcoming deployment. This forward-deployed brigade deploys yet again to Iraq for over a year, leaving the expensively deployed families behind in Germany. After the brigade returns home, soldiers enjoy some time off and then await orders to return back to the USA, along with their family, furniture, and cars.

Generals fear that senior officials in the new Obama administration will learn of this madness. Since they have no excuse, they are attempting to place moles inside his administration to mislead and derail changes. They quietly tout people like the current Defense Secretary Gates as experienced, knowledgeable, and well respected, since he agreed to kill Rumsfeld’s plan. Generals only endorse supporters of the empire, and know how to resist pressure to change that occasionally come from the “temporary occupants of the White House” as General Douglas MacArthur once described presidential administrations. As a result, the second step President Obama should take is to order the immediate resumption of the “Bush-Rumsfeld” plan to reduce U.S. troop levels in Germany from four combat brigades to one.

It seems certain that President Obama will close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terror suspects have been tortured for years. Senator McCain and even Defense Secretary Gates have stated it should be closed. One reason it was selected as a prison is because the base had no real mission. A former head of the Atlantic command, Marine General John Sheehan, wanted to close it a decade ago.  

Guantanamo was established after the Spanish-American war because the U.S. military always builds bases in newly conquered areas. Its mission as America’s first foreign base was to serve as a “coaling station” where coal-powered ships could refuel. When longer-range oil-powered ships entered the fleet, a new mission was invented. The base would help watch for enemy fleets heading toward the Panama Canal. This was before aircraft and satellites, and when the USA controlled the canal.

As a result, President Obama should order the closure of the entire base, not just the prison. The base was retained the past four decades just to irritate Castro. He will die soon, and relations with Cuba should normalize as Obama has already promised to ease trade barriers. Closing Guantanamo is a first step, and one that will save the Navy millions of dollars a year and eliminate thousands of base personnel slots at a remote, unpopular duty station. The Navy already has an air station at Key West, Florida for whatever Caribbean contingency arises, plus access to airfields in Puerto Rico.

After President Obama orders an end to the bogus Poland-Czech base plan, a resumption of the Bush-Rumsfeld plan to reduce Army combat brigades in Germany, and orders the closure of the Navy base in Cuba, he needs a comprehensive plan to downsize the empire. The President does not need Congressional approval to close foreign bases, but issues are complex so he should form an Overseas Base Closure and Realignment Commission (OBRAC). This group needs months to study and recommend closures and realignments of outdated Cold war bases, and to review the dozens of new semi-secret bases built during the Bush years. Generals will strongly recommend retired Generals for the OBRAC, hoping to sabotage the process. Obama must ignore them and appoint knowledgeable civilians with no links to those profiting from the base empire.

Obama needs the OBRAC to help reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Generals have spent over $100 billion to build huge, modern bases that they want to keep. They will argue that all are essential for regional security. However, these bases and their supply lines are vulnerable to insurgent attacks, so American combat forces are needed to protect them. Therefore, the number of combat forces must remain nearly the same. President Obama will learn that the tail wags the dog in Iraq. A reduction in American combat forces is not possible without the closure of most of the new bases in Iraq that his Generals love. The Generals will agree to “study” the issue and publicly announce that troop reductions will occur, but the “security situation” will always prevent significant reductions.

Jimmy Carter was the last President to force Generals to close foreign bases. Carter saw no need to spend a billion dollars annually for a series of military bases in the American “canal zone” enclave. Generals warned of dire consequences if U.S. troops left Panama, but nothing happened. When the U.S. military left its two big bases in the Philippines in 1992, Generals warned of instability in the Western Pacific. Nothing occurred, except the USA saves a billion dollars a year in base operating costs and another billion a year in rent.

Cutting military spending as become a “third rail” in American politics that President Obama may be afraid to touch. However, closing U.S. military bases overseas is very popular with the American people since it shifts billions of dollars back into the U.S. economy along with tens of thousands of jobs. It also frees Army manpower and resources for more combat units. The American people haven’t the resources or desire to rule the world. History has shown that such attempts are doomed to fail, and destroys the nation in the process.

[1] "Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars," The Independent, Nov. 13, 2008.

[2] “Perpetual War,” SRA October 8, 2008.

[3] "U.S. general urges Obama not to cave to Russia," Reuters Nov. 12, 2008.

[4] “The Missile Defense Racket,” SRA July 27, 2007;.

[5] “Coming Home from the Cold War,” G2mil Quarterly; Winter 2004.