 |
Waiting for Balancing: Why the World Isn't Pushing Back
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
4 2
See James Sterngold, “After 9/11, U.S. Policy Built on Wo rld Bases,” The San Francisco Chronicle,
M arch 2 1, 20 04, a vailab le at
http://www .glob alsecu rity.org/o rg/new s/200 4/04 032 1-wo rld-ba ses.htm
; Dav id
Rennie, “America's Growing Network of Bases,” Daily Telegraph, September 11, 2003, available at
http://www .glob alsecu rity.org/o rg/new s/200 3/03 091 1-de ploym ents01.htm
; and “Worldwide Reorientation
of U.S. Military Basing in Prospect,” Center for Defense Information, September 19, 2003 and “WorldwideReorientation of U.S. Military Basing: Part II: Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Pacific,” Center forDefense Information, October 7, 2003, both available at
http://www.cdi.org/program/documents.cfm?ProgramID=37
.
18
tactical air power would impose real military costs. Increased logistical problems in
projecting force to conflict areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, or elsewhere
would, in turn, effectively diminish America’s relative power advantage. The prediction
that countries will increasingly restrict U.S. basing rights seems to have been generated
by the single case of Turkey denying American ground forces transit rights through
Turkish territory for the invasion of Iraq. However, Pape also suggests that countries
such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany will likely impose new restrictions or
reductions on American forces stationed on their soil.
In fact, the overall American overseas basing picture looks much brighter today
than it did only a few years ago. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has
established a string of new bases and negotiated landing rights across Europe, Central
Asia, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. All told, it has built, upgraded, or expanded
military facilities in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, Djibouti, the
Philippines, Diego Garcia.
42
The strategic logic of these and other military deployments
is as impressive as the sheer size and quantity of new and expanded bases. That is, the
recently announced plans to redeploy or withdraw up to 70,000 troops from Cold War
bases in Europe and Asia are not being driven by host-country concerns (as noted below,
the reality is quite the opposite), but by a reassessment of global threats to American
|
| | Authors: Lieber, Keir. and Alexander, Gerard. |
|
| |
|
|
4 2
See James Sterngold, “After 9/11, U.S. Policy Built on Wo rld Bases,” The San Francisco Chronicle,
M arch 2 1, 20 04, a vailab le at
; Dav id
Rennie, “America's Growing Network of Bases,” Daily Telegraph, September 11, 2003, available at
; and “Worldwide Reorientation
of U.S. Military Basing in Prospect,” Center for Defense Information, September 19, 2003 and “Worldwide
Reorientation of U.S. Military Basing: Part II: Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Pacific,” Center for
Defense Information, October 7, 2003, both available at
.
18
tactical air power would impose real military costs. Increased logistical problems in
projecting force to conflict areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, or elsewhere
would, in turn, effectively diminish America’s relative power advantage. The prediction
that countries will increasingly restrict U.S. basing rights seems to have been generated
by the single case of Turkey denying American ground forces transit rights through
Turkish territory for the invasion of Iraq. However, Pape also suggests that countries
such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany will likely impose new restrictions or
reductions on American forces stationed on their soil.
In fact, the overall American overseas basing picture looks much brighter today
than it did only a few years ago. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has
established a string of new bases and negotiated landing rights across Europe, Central
Asia, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. All told, it has built, upgraded, or expanded
military facilities in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, Djibouti, the
Philippines, Diego Garcia.
42
The strategic logic of these and other military deployments
is as impressive as the sheer size and quantity of new and expanded bases. That is, the
recently announced plans to redeploy or withdraw up to 70,000 troops from Cold War
bases in Europe and Asia are not being driven by host-country concerns (as noted below,
the reality is quite the opposite), but by a reassessment of global threats to American
|
|
 Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
