The military uses ā€˜operating site’ nomenclature to deny bases exist.

Evidence

When it comes to foreign bases, terminology often reflects political, legal, and public relations calculations more than analytic accuracy: using the terms military facility or forward operating location, for example, helps minimize perceptions of a base’s size and significance and the idea that an occupying military has usurped another nation’s sovereignty. Ensuring that base ownership officially remains with the ā€œhostā€ country and that the United States is officially a ā€œguestā€ is likewise one way to try to reduce local opposition and political furor. In reality, the degree to which a host exercises effective sovereign control over its territory varies widely and generally reflects broader power relations between the United States and a host (another term that can be something of a misnomer depending on the degree of control a country actually has over its U.S. guests). — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 1091 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Military base terminology is chosen to minimize perceptions of occupation — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 1091

Broader Connections