• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ally bases on US soil

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
20,969
Reaction score
7,760
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Would you support an ally, say Britian or Japan, having a base for one for their armed services here in the US? Why or why not? With that do you currently support US bases in other countries? If you support our bases there but not their bases here, what is your reasoning?
 


the reasoning is pretty straight forward. no other country has the resources to locate on our soil and locating on our soil wouldnt address anyone elses security issues. it is useful for us to have bases abroad as it allows projected power to fight a was on the other guys dirt (paraphrase from patton)
 

Before I can effectively answer, what reasons do you have in mind for an ally basing a garrison on our soil? We have missile-defense systems in the Balkans to project power at enemy states, such as Russia and Iran, for example.

Perhaps NORAD collapses (for some reason) and the U.S. is unable to effectively uphold the normalized continental defenses?
Or a Civil War/Uprising/Insurrection?
 

Of course. It makes understanding, coordination and training more effective and builds trust. I cannot think of a real reason why not.
 

I would oppose have foreign troops based here.

I also oppose having our troops based in foreign countries.

Good questions! :thumbs:
 
Sure, we could use the rental income. The better question is why would they (Britain or Japan) want to have that added expense?
 
I would not support that, here's why.

In 1929 then Secretary of State Henry Stimson said that "gentlemen don't read each other's mail." Fast forward to WWII and you have Alan Turing and the British guys trying to break the enigma machine, which Eisenhower said was "decisive" in an Allied Victory.

Around this time, OSS was training agents using a handbook from British Intelligence. The first OSS officers were trained in Canada. This is an example of how the US cooperated with its allies to develop new intelligence. Notice how the US was completely deficient in its intelligence before adopting the MI6 model for intelligence gathering methods and assassination. This expanded the global pool of military recruits from which the Allies could draw intelligence agents.

Since the advent of the CIA in 1947, the US has expanded it's use of intelligence on a global scale. According to a 2013 article, the CIA expanded it's budget and recently surpassed any other agency in the intelligence community. While it is not the role of the CIA to collect data on US Citizens, having foreign allies here adds depth to the intelligence community. It is not out of the question that the CIA would be motivated to share information around military programs with foreign intelligence, such as information regarding members of foreign armed services on US soil. In short, we don't need further militarization of the CIA.

I think, in principle, it's a great idea to share resources with allies. However, the military which regularly interacts with locals in communities around the US has had a profound impact. So called "military communities" around military bases house transient members of the armed services who travel among bases. Military families are a symptom of the militarization of our culture in a nationalistic sense. Adding ally bases would further militarize our culture right here in America. I don't support that because the military presence is strong enough.

I have nothing against our allies, and I think that our best work is done when we share operators. Our best interest may not be installing bases to receive a certain nationality of ally in each case. Instead, the use of translators on our own soil can accommodate allies. After WWII, we made sure to maintain and expand our military presence overseas. The MI6 "investment" paid off. I think we should cease expansion of foreign military operations now that our diplomacy is valued, although sometimes questioned, like in the case of Snowden. We have business relations to uphold. Why jeopardize that with more military bases?
 
There are lots of foreign troops in the U.S., some countries having a more or less permanent presence. A sizable chunk of Singapore's Air Force for example is based at two locations in the United States and have been for years.
 
If there was some regional threat to the security of the United States that was something beyond the scope of what we could reasonably be expected to handle ourselves, or if we were close enough to an active or likely zone of international conflict such that we could serve as a forward-positioned staging area for allies or coalition partners, then I would certainly be open to the possibility.

But there isn't any Russia, or China, or North Korea, or "Middle East" over in this vicinity threatening international stability or our own security that could serve as a reasonably analogous threat for the types of places that we have troops forward deployed around the world.

Understand that I don't actually support a lot of the places that we do currently base troops.

I think a couple of Army posts, and a couple of airbases in Germany, OR the UK, OR Italy, for example, would be sufficient for Europe and similarly I think we should keep troops in Japan and pull them out of Korea, but I think a lot of that, too, depends on what type of U.S. military force any one country is willing to accept.

My "plan" (which it isn't, really, but for lack of a better term) would require Japan to accept an additional 10,000+ U.S. combat troops on to their home islands and that may not be something they'd be willing to do, but I can see the sense of having half of an Infantry Division posted to the APAC region.

Understand too that our presence in these places serves as a deterrent to aggression and there is no other "superpower" state out there which could provide the same deterrent value were they to be stationed here.

I think looking at this from a sort of quid pro quo perspective where, if it's okay for us to do it, then it should be okay for them to do it too, completely ignores the fact that there are actual reasons for doing it, in general, and that those reasons don't apply equally everywhere.
 

1. We didn't lose the war

2. Why would england, or Japan want a base in The United States?
 

George Air force Base used to house German pilots training with US pilots on a regular basis. Semi-permanent until the fall of the wall and George's closing.

Bothered me not one bit (except when they were heating up liverwurst in the Microwave)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Sure, we could use the rental income. The better question is why would they (Britain or Japan) want to have that added expense?
Click to expand...

I'm not looking at the practicality of it, at least not in financial terms. I am inquiring on the principle of it.
 

It would depend on the reason, actually several allied countries do have permanent garrisons here in the US. Germany for example has several Luftwaffe units assigned to Nellis AFB for training purposes since we have emptier skies and a better training environment then over Europe.

I don't see why another country wants to have an exclusive use base in the US, since we wouldn't allow a country that may be hostile to us to base here, and all of our bordering countries, Canada and Mexico and aligned with us and so we wouldn't allow a country with cold relations to those two countries to strategically position forces against them.

so other then training environment we don't offer that much for another country.
 
Lots of members of the USA's allies armed forces train at bases in the USA.
 
maquiscat said:
I'm not looking at the practicality of it, at least not in financial terms. I am inquiring on the principle of it.
Click to expand...



on principal sure, a close ally could reasonably want basing rights here, I'm not opposed to principle, however you cannot separate practicality because we would never approve a foreign base here unless there was a justifiable reason for one, and what reasons would there be? there's only three, training (and we already permit that), supply and logistics (and foreign ships and aircraft from friendly nations can and do use our facilities, naval bases, civilian ports, air bases, for those purposes) and to pre-position men and equipment for conflict (and who would they be positioning forces against? both our bordering countries are allies and trading partners?)
 

:shrug: if it was needed to defend the homeland, sure. I don't think that's likely, given that the Canadians have been pretty quiet since that dust-up a couple of centuries ago.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: if it was needed to defend the homeland, sure. I don't think that's likely, given that the Canadians have been pretty quiet since that dust-up a couple of centuries ago.
Click to expand...

You never know about Canada though. They are always looming over us.....watching......waiting......



:mrgreen:
 
Not the USA, but the British army has had a huge training area in Suffield, Alberta for the last 40+ years. Just keeping an eye, you understand....
 
Tigerace117 said:
You never know about Canada though. They are always looming over us.....watching......waiting......

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

They've moved the vast majority of their population to within striking distance of the US Border. Why would they do that if they weren't planning to eventually invade?
 

I've always wanted to integrate some training battalions with Israeli units state-side. Their urban warfare tactical training courses are incredible. We could learn a lot from them. I would also support British and Canadian forces stateside.

As to directly answer your question, I can't think of any negative reasons that outweigh the positive. Foreign bases typically generate major income for surrounding towns as well.

As for Japan, they'd have no reason to be here. There more of an in-country defense force. Wouldn't make sense. Maybe Hawaii?
 
No. There is zero reason for allied bases in the US. If they are feeling that froggy, they can take on more of a direct burden in their home countries or in hotspots throughout the world. Frankly...we have 4 lines of defense in place already. We have an active duty military, a reserve corp, a National Guard and a 120 million strong armed civilian militia that would stand ready to augment the Guard and reserve forces if it should ever come to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…