Host-nation opposition and use restrictions are driving the Pentagon toward small covert bases

Evidence

Since at least the decolonization era of the 1950s, U.S. officials have feared the kind of protest increasingly seen in places such as Vicenza, Vieques, and Okinawa. Planners covet safe, worry-free bases insulated from opposition, military constraints, and the risk of eviction. They want bases free of the kinds of restrictions the military faced during the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1970s, when several European allies prevented the use of their bases and airspace to support Israel, and again in the lead-up to the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Turkey and other European countries limited the use of U.S. bases on their soil. A Pentagon official explained in a 2009 presentation that the new aim is to “lighten U.S. foreign footprints to reduce friction with host nations” and avoid offending “host nation and regional sensitivities.” Avoidance of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the goal. And to achieve it, the Pentagon is increasingly turning to small, covert sites scattered around the globe—the “cooperative security locations” frequently referred to simply as “lily pads.” — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 951

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘cooperative security locations’ / ‘lily pads’ as the small, covert base model replacing large bases.