"With 750 Bases In 80 Countries Is Now The Time For The U.S" Topic

… to Bring Its Troops Home?

"President Joe Biden did what his three predecessors could or would not: halt a seemingly endless war. It took two decades, but American troops no longer are fighting in Afghanistan.

An important aspect of the US withdrawal was closing Washington's bases, which once spread across the country. Uncle Sam left Bagram Air Base, America's biggest facility in Afghanistan, on his way home.

However, some 750 American military facilities remain open in 80 nations and territories around the world. No other country in human history has had such a dominant presence. Great Britain was the leading colonial power, but its army was small. London had to supplement its own troops with foreign mercenaries, as in the American Revolution. In wars with great powers Britain provided its allies with financial subsidies rather than soldiers…"

link

Main page
link

Armand

As far as I'm concerned, Pre Biden didn't halt a war. He just moved our troops out of a specific combat area. And did it really poorly.

Really poorly is an understatement! 13 good men died because of HIS really poorly.

What is the definition of "facility" and a "base"? The article is nonsense.

Guam and Puerto Rico are not countries.

I'm surprised that Colonial Britain doesn't have more facilities based upon the various coaling and wireless stations they had all around the world.

Are they counting the Embassy Marines in this?

Agree, nonsense article.

Two words – YES and YES!! The USA is one big jobs program for Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Italy……..not to mention overseas housing allowances, troops spending all their pay in foreign lands – the huge US civilian workforce that supports…….Billions of $$ going to foreign nations. long overdue.

Uncle Sam left Bagram Air Base, America's biggest facility in Afghanistan, on his way home.

Besides ignoring the intel that the Taliban were on the attack since May-June. This was huge mistake then compounded by pulling troops out before civilians.

Some said BAF was too big to defend with only 2500 US troops. However …There were the ANA/ANP there albeit of questionable quality, in some cases.

However, 7000-8000 NATO troops were in country …

With BAF we had a forward deployed airbase with CAS, Strike, Drone, Gunships, etc., aircraft. Which could have been called in to support the ground forces. Or just strike targets of opportunity, etc., [e.g. Taliban, AQ, ISIS, etc.]. Otherwise the over-the-horizon air support could take 8 + hours to get there. Limiting loiter time and possibly require in air refueling, etc.

If you call-in for CAS which takes 8 hours to get there. I'm pretty it would be too late. And again cut down on loiter time.

The US then deployed 5800 to defend Kabul. A one runway civilian airport, next to an urban area, i.e. Kabul … Would have been better to have kept Bagram. Add the 5800 US troops to the 2500 already at BAF.

That is not 20/20 hindsight … it's military common sense, IMO … But these decisions were not made with military sound tactical and operational standards. But based on politics & optics of the camera & media. With the military & intel advisors being ignored. And once again, as in Vietnam, Somalia, etc. The WH, in this case put a ceiling on the troop levels to be in country to execute the withdrawal. Again tying one hand behind the back of the military to do a a mission they were ordered to do by the WH.

As far as I'm concerned, Pre Biden didn't halt a war. He just moved our troops out of a specific combat area. And did it really poorly.

+10 !!!

Really poorly is an understatement! 13 good men died because of HIS really poorly.

+10 !!!

The article is nonsense.

Bingo !!!!!

Agree, nonsense article.

Definitely … if the gov't wants to save money, there is a lot of other areas to do it. But the list may get me DH'd …

It actually makes a lot of sense to withdraw from at least some countries on the following grounds:

1. Constant deployments degrade capability over time.

Each deployment means troops aren't training in key areas, equipment is being worn down and it puts extra strain on maintenance.

Navy is especially suffering here – double deployments and ships being run to the ground which means it costs more to repair them which in turn jacks up costs.

2. Each deployment has an opportunity cost eg as mentioned above training and maintenance but also spending that money on other things which maintain or improve capability.

3. Not all of those overseas bases and deployments further the US national (or western) interests. Indeed one could argue that maintaining US forces in Europe provides an excuse for NATO allies to spend less.

Eg deploying F-15/-16s to Romania for air policing means that Romania isn't really spending any money to modernise its fighter fleet which is still based around 30 MiG-21MFs and they've only acquired a measly 17 F-16A/Bs which were manufactured in 1980s!

The Germans are even worse – NATO guarantee + US deployed forces means they have run their military into the ground despite being the biggest economy in Europe.

Some of the African ones are a true waste of resources – supporting unsustainable regimes fight forever wars in what are essentially stillborn pretend states bound to fail.

Glad you read you again my good friend… (smile)

Armand

Cheers Tango.