Transpartisan Letter Opposing New US Military Bases in Europe
and Proposing Alternatives to Support Ukrainian, US, and European Security

May 24, 2022


Dear President Joseph Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark A. Milley, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Members of Congress,

The undersigned represent a broad group of military analysts, veterans, scholars, advocates, and organizations from across the political spectrum who oppose the creation of new US military bases in Europe as wasteful and damaging to national security and who offer alternative ways to respond to the war in Ukraine.

We find the following and expand on each point below:

1)   No Russian military threat justifies the creation of new US military bases.  
     
2)   New US bases would waste billions in taxpayer funds and distract from efforts to
       protect the security of the United States.
 
3)   New US bases would further escalate military tensions with Russia, increasing the    
       risk of a potentially nuclear war.
 
4)   The US can and should close unnecessary bases in Europe as a sign of strength while
       deepening smarter, cost-effective alternatives with allies.
 
5)   Proposals for US military posture in Europe can advance negotiations to end the war
       in Ukraine as quickly as possible.
 
1. No Russian Military Threat Justifies New US Bases
 
  • Putin’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated the weakness of the Russian military, providing abundant evidence that it is not a conventional threat to the United States and NATO allies.
 
  • While fears about Russia among some in Europe are understandable, the Russian military is not a threat to Europe beyond Ukraine, Moldova, and the Caucuses.
 
  • Around 300 existing US base sites in Europe[1] and additional NATO bases and forces plus NATO Article 5 (requiring members to defend any member attacked) provide more than adequate deterrence to any Russian attack on NATO. New bases are simply unnecessary.

  • NATO allies, alone, have military bases and forces that are more than capable to defend Europe from any Russian military attack. If Ukraine’s military can hold off around 75% of Russia’s combat forces,[2] NATO allies do not need additional US bases and forces.
 
  • Unnecessarily increasing the number of US military bases and troops in Europe would distract the US military from protecting the United States.
 
2. New Bases Would Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars
 
  • Building up US bases and forces in Europe would waste billions of dollars better spent on crumbling US infrastructure and other pressing domestic needs. US taxpayers already spend far too much maintaining bases and forces in Europe: around $30 billion per year.[3]
 
  • Even if allies pay for some new bases, US taxpayers will spend considerably more money to maintain larger numbers of US forces in Europe due to transportation costs, increased salaries, and other expenses. Future costs could escalate as host countries often withdraw financial support for US bases over time.
 
  • Building new European bases likely would inflate the bloated Pentagon budget when we should be cutting that budget following the end of the Afghan war. The US spends more than 12 times what Russia spends on its military. US allies in NATO already vastly outspend Russia, and Germany and others plan to increase their military spending significantly.[4]  
 
3. New Bases Would Escalate US-Russia Tensions, Risking (Nuclear) War
 
  • Building new US (or NATO) bases in Europe would further escalate growing military tensions with Russia, increasing the risk of a potentially nuclear war with Russia.
 
  • Creating new US military bases in Eastern Europe, closer and closer to Russia’s borders, as part of NATO’s expansion over the past two decades, has threatened Russia unnecessarily and encouraged Putin to respond militarily. How would US leaders and the public have responded if Russia had built bases recently in Cuba, Venezuela, and Central America?
 
4. Closing Bases as a Sign of Strength and Alternative Security Arrangements
 
  • The US military already has far too many military bases—around 300 sites—and too many forces in Europe. Since the Cold War’s end, US bases in Europe have not protected Europe. They have served as launchpads for catastrophic wars in the Middle East.
 
  • The US can and should safely close bases and withdraw forces in Europe as a sign of strength and confidence in the power of the US military and NATO allies and as a reflection of the actual threat facing Europe.
 
  • The war in Ukraine has shown what military experts already knew: rapid response forces can deploy to Europe fast enough to be based in the continental United States thanks to air and sealift technology. Many of the troops responding to the war in Ukraine came from the United States rather than from bases in Europe, raising questions about the need for bases and troops in Europe.
 
  • The war in Ukraine has shown that access agreements at host nation bases, weapons transport and broader logistics systems, training arrangements, and prepositioning are better and more cost effective ways to help NATO allies protect European security.
 
5. Proposals to Advance Negotiations to End the War in Ukraine
 
  • The US government can play a productive role in negotiations by promising not to build new bases in Europe.
 
  • The US government can promise—publicly or secretly, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis—to reduce its forces, withdraw offensive weapons systems, and close unnecessary bases in Europe.
 
  • The US and NATO can promise not to admit Ukraine or any new NATO members unless Russia becomes a member as well.
 
  • The US and NATO can urge a return to treaties in Europe governing the deployment of conventional and nuclear forces, including regular inspections and monitoring at bases.

In the interest of US, European, and global security, we urge you not to create additional US military bases in Europe and to support diplomatic negotiations to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Individuals (affiliations for identification purposes only)
Theresa (Isa) Arriola, Assistant Professor, Concordia University
William J. Astore, Lt Col, USAF (Ret.)
Clare Bayard, Board Member, About Face Veterans Against The War
Amy F. Belasco, Retired, Defense Budget Expert
Medea Benjamin, Co-director, Codepink for Peace
Michael Brenes, Lecturer in History, Yale University
Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT; Laureate Professor, University of Arizona
Cynthia Enloe, Research Professor, Clark University
Monaeka Flores, Prutehi Litekyan
Joseph Gerson, President, Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
Eugene Gholz, Associate Professor, University of Notre Dame
Lauren Hirshberg, Associate Professor, Regis College
Catherine Lutz, Professor, Brown University
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University
Miriam Pemberton, Associate Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies
David Swanson, Author, World BEYOND War
David Vine, Professor, American University
Allan Vogel, Board of Directors, Foreign Policy Alliance, Inc.
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel, US Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow Eisenhower Media Network;
Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (Ret.); Advisory Board Member, Veterans for Peace
Kathy Yuknavage, Treasurer, Our Common Wealth 670
 
Organizations
About Face Veterans Against The War
Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
CODEPINK
Hawai'i Peace and Justice
National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies
Progressive Democrats of America
Public Citizen
RootsAction.org
Veterans For Peace Chapter 113 - Hawai'i
War Prevention Initiative
World BEYOND War
 

[1] The Pentagon’s most recent “Base Structure Report” for FY2020 identifies 274 base sites. The Pentagon’s report is notoriously inaccurate. An additional 22 sites are identified in David Vine, Patterson Deppen, and Leah Bolger, “Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad.” Quincy Brief no. 16, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and World BEYOND War, September 20, 2021.

[2] https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2969068/senior-defense-official-holds-a-background-briefing-march-16-2022/.

[3] The “Drawdown” report (p. 5) estimates global costs for bases, alone, of $55 billion/year. With 39% of the estimated 750 US bases abroad located in Europe, costs for the continent are around $21.34 billion/year. Costs for the 100,000 US troops now in Europe total around $11.5 billion, using a conservative estimate of $115,000/troop.

[4] Diego Lopes da Silva, et al., “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2021,” SIPRI Fact Sheet, SIPRI, April 2022, p. 2.

Transpartisan Letter to President Biden on the U.S. Global Posture Review
and Closing Military Bases Abroad to Improve National and International Security

PDF HERE

PRESS RELEASE HERE

March 4, 2021

Dear President Joseph Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Members of Congress,

The undersigned represent a broad group of military analysts, veterans, scholars, and advocates from across the political spectrum who agree with President Biden’s directive to conduct a thorough global posture review of U.S. forces. This has the potential to be a singularly important initiative in U.S. history. As a result of a long-outdated forward deployment strategy that dates to the first years of the Cold War, the United States today maintains approximately 800 base sites in around 80 foreign countries. Many of these bases should have closed decades ago. Maintaining unnecessary bases abroad wastes tens of millions of tax dollars annually and actively undermines the safety of the country and the world.

This letter’s diverse signatories have different ideas about how many bases to close but find broad agreement about the following nine reasons to close foreign bases and improve national and international security in the process:

1. Overseas bases cost taxpayers billions every year. According to the RAND Corporation, it costs an average of $10,000-$40,000 more per person per year to station military personnel on overseas bases compared to domestic bases. In total, the country spends an estimated $51.5 billion annually to build and run bases abroad—at a time when trillions are urgently needed for human and environmental needs including a disease pandemic and a climate crisis.

2. Overseas bases are now largely obsolete thanks to technological advancements. Because of advances in air and sealift and other military technology, rapid response forces can deploy to virtually any region fast enough to be based in the continental United States. The development of extremely accurate intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles also makes overseas bases vulnerable to asymmetric attacks that are very difficult to defend against. In northeast Asia, for example, more than 90 percent of U.S. air facilities are in high-threat areas.

3. Overseas bases entangle the U.S. in wars. Bases dotting the globe fuel hyper-interventionist foreign policy by making war look like an easy solution while offering targets for militants and endangering host nations.

4. Overseas bases increase military tension. Rather than deterring adversaries, U.S. bases can exacerbate security threats by antagonizing other countries into greater military spending and aggression. Russia, for example, justifies its interventions in Georgia and Ukraine by pointing to encroaching U.S. bases in Eastern Europe. China feels encircled by the more than 250 U.S. bases in the region, leading to a more assertive policy in the South China Sea.

5. Overseas bases support dictators and repressive, undemocratic regimes. Scores of U.S. bases are in more than 40 authoritarian and less-than-democratic countries, including Bahrain, Turkey, and Niger. These bases are a sign of support for governments implicated in murder, torture, suppressing democratic rights, oppressing women and minorities, and other human rights abuses. Far from spreading democracy, bases abroad often block democracy’s spread.

6. Overseas bases cause blowback. In the Middle East in particular, U.S. bases and troops have provoked terrorist threats, radicalization, and anti-American propaganda. Bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia were a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

7. Overseas bases damage the environment. Bases abroad have a long track record of damaging local environments as a result of toxic leaks, accidents, the dumping of hazardous materials, and base construction. The DoD does not hold itself to the environmental protection standards established for domestic bases, and Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) may prohibit inspections by the host government and/or may relieve the U.S. from clean-up costs.

8. Overseas bases damage America’s international reputation and generate protest. Because people tend not to like their land occupied by foreign militaries, it’s unsurprising that bases abroad generate some degree of opposition almost everywhere they’re found (causing problems for the military). Local citizens are being poisoned by toxic chemicals in their water supplies (see #7) without recourse.  Crimes by military personnel, including rapes and murders, and deadly accidents also damage America’s reputation and generate protest. Bases in colonized U.S. territories perpetuate their diminished sovereignty and 2nd class citizenship.

9. Overseas bases are bad for families. Deployments overseas can separate military personnel from their families for months and years, damaging relationships. Even when families enjoy the opportunity to accompany military personnel abroad, frequent moves are disruptive to the careers, schooling, and lives of spouses and children.

Compared to closing domestic bases, closing overseas bases is easy. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush closed hundreds of unnecessary bases in Europe and Asia, and the Trump administration closed some bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Significantly reducing the U.S. global footprint would bring home thousands of personnel and family members who would contribute to the domestic economy.

In the interest of national, global, and fiscal security, we urge President Biden and Secretary Austin, supported by Congress, to begin a process to close bases overseas and relocate military personnel and families to domestic bases, where there is well-documented excess capacity.

Sincerely,
[Affiliations for identification purposes only.]

Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Christine Ahn, Founder and International Coordinator, Women Cross the DMZ

Andrew Bacevich, President, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Medea Benjamin, Co-director, Codepink for Peace

Phyllis Bennis, Director, New Internationalism Project, Institute for Policy Studies; Fellow, Transnational Institute

Déborah Berman Santana, Professor Emeritus, Mills College/Committee for the Rescue & Development of Vieques (Puerto Rico)

Leah Bolger, Commander, US Navy (Ret.); President, World BEYOND War

Noam Chomsky, Laureate Professor of Linguistics, Agnese Nelms Haury Chair, University of Arizona; Professor Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology             

Sasha Davis, Associate Professor, Keene State College

Cynthia Enloe, Research Professor, Clark University

John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy In Focus

Ben Friedman, Policy Director, Defense Priorities

Eugene Gholz, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame

Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Zoltán Grossman, Professor of Geography & Native Studies, The Evergreen State College

Mark W. Harrison, Peace with Justice Program Director, The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society

William Hartung, Director, Arms and Security Program, Center for International Policy

Patrick Hiller, Executive Director, War Prevention Initiative

Daniel Immerwahr, Professor of History, Northwestern University

Kyle Kajihiro, Board Member, Hawai’i Peace and Justice

Gwyn Kirk, Member, Women for Genuine Security

Kate Kizer, Policy Director, Win Without War

Barry Klein, Conservative Activist, Foreign Policy Alliance

Lindsay Koshgarian, Program Director, National Priorities Project, Institute for Policy Studies

Dennis Laich, Major General, US Army (Ret.); Executive Director, The All-Volunteer Force Forum

Terry L. Lowman, Co-chair, Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community

Catherine Lutz, Professor, Brown University

Paul Kawika Martin, Senior Director, Policy and Political Affairs, Peace Action

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

Jon Mitchell, Visiting Researcher, International Peace Research Institute, Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo

Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Director, Peace Philosophy Centre Coordinator, International Network of Museums for Peace

Miriam Pemberton, Associate Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies

Christopher Preble, Co-Director, New American Engagement Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

Sayo Saruta, New Diplomacy Initiative [Japan]

Daniel Sjursen, Major, US Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy; Contributing Editor, Antiwar.com

David Swanson, Author; Executive Director, World BEYOND War

John Tierney, Former Member of Congress; Executive Director, Council for a Livable World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

David Vine, Professor of Anthropology, American University; Author, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World

Allan Vogel, Board of Directors, Foreign Policy Alliance, Inc.

Stephen Wertheim, Director of Grand Strategy, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel, US Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow Eisenhower Media Network; Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (Ret.); Advisory Board Member, Veterans for Peace

Johnny Zokovitch, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA


Read OBRACC Members' 2019 Op-Ed in The Hill

Protect the Marianas:

OBRACC Urges Pentagon Halt Training and Testing in the Pacific until the Military Demonstrates No Harmful Impact to the Environment of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam

Read the letter here. 
PDF HERE


OBRACC Letter Launch Event
Watch on Vimeo ​

Making America Safer and Saving Billions
by Closing US Bases Overseas:
The Launch of a Transpartisan Coalition

November 29, 2018
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC

An op-ed about OBRACC and OBRACC's 2018 letter

are in Defense One.

OVERSEAS BASE REALIGNMENT AND ​CLOSURE COALITION






MEDIA CONTACT: David Vine, [email protected], 510-764-8895

Additional Experts for Media
Proudly powered by Weebly