The Pentagon shifted to small covert ‘lily pad’ bases to evade local opposition.

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

Category: Causal Relationships

• DEFINE: Defines ‘lily pads’ / ‘cooperative security locations’ — the small covert bases concept central to this chapter.

Related

• Host-nation opposition and use restrictions are driving the Pentagon toward small covert bases (similarity 0.97)
• Lily pads quietly expand US military reach into new conflict zones. (similarity 0.87)
• Lily pad bases cluster in weak states with lax environmental laws and lower costs. (similarity 0.84)
• Lily pads provide redundancy so base denial by one host can be bypassed (similarity 0.84)
• Small secret U.S. outposts avoid scrutiny and use contractors the government can disown (similarity 0.84)
• Closing big bases drove the Pentagon toward smaller lily pad facilities (similarity 0.84)
• Lily pad bases are kept secret to avoid protest and accountability. (similarity 0.83)
• Lily pad networks reproduce full military capacity while avoiding bases’ visible political costs. (similarity 0.83)
• Euphemistic base terminology deliberately minimizes perceived U.S. footprint (similarity 0.83)
• The forward strategy transformed the US from opposing standing armies to global military patrol. (similarity 0.82)
• Many dispersed bases give the US wartime redundancy and lower eviction costs. (similarity 0.82)
• Small forward bases still harm local communities and provoke opposition. (similarity 0.81)
• Lily pads serve as back doors for political and economic influence. (similarity 0.81)
• Smaller lily pad bases still harm local communities despite hopes they would avoid controversy. (similarity 0.81)
• Lily pads grant the U.S. Subic-era access without the political costs of large garrisons (similarity 0.81)