Closing big bases drove the Pentagon toward smaller lily pad facilities

Evidence

Clark and Subic Bay closed in 1992 after the Filipino government refused to renew a lease on the bases and adopted a new constitution banning foreign bases. A few years later, after the 1999 reversion of the Panama Canal Zone, the U.S. military lost its Panamanian bases as well. Responding to these losses, Bill Clinton’s Pentagon started developing lily pads and other small and medium-sized bases in places such as Ecuador, Aruba, Curaçao, and El Salvador. As a Pentagon official explained in a 2009 presentation, the aim is to “lighten U.S. foreign footprints to reduce friction with host nations” and avoid offending “host nation and regional sensitivities.” — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 153

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: Direct causal chain underpinning the book’s lilies and lily pads framework.

Related

• Losses of major bases drove the U.S. to build smaller lily pads worldwide (similarity 0.95)
• Small lily pad bases routinely expand into behemoth installations. (similarity 0.88)
• Lily pad networks reproduce full military capacity while avoiding bases’ visible political costs. (similarity 0.85)
• The Pentagon shifted to small covert ‘lily pad’ bases to evade local opposition. (similarity 0.84)
• Lily pad bases cluster in weak states with lax environmental laws and lower costs. (similarity 0.83)
• Host-nation opposition and use restrictions are driving the Pentagon toward small covert bases (similarity 0.83)
• Lily pads provide redundancy so base denial by one host can be bypassed (similarity 0.83)
• Lily pads grant the U.S. Subic-era access without the political costs of large garrisons (similarity 0.83)
• Lily pads quietly expand US military reach into new conflict zones. (similarity 0.83)
• Smaller lily pad bases still harm local communities despite hopes they would avoid controversy. (similarity 0.82)
• Many dispersed bases give the US wartime redundancy and lower eviction costs. (similarity 0.81)
• Small temporary bases routinely grow into large permanent ones with rising costs. (similarity 0.81)
• Small military outposts advance U.S. business and deepen host-country dependence. (similarity 0.80)
• Small forward bases still harm local communities and provoke opposition. (similarity 0.80)
• Lily pads serve as back doors for political and economic influence. (similarity 0.80)