The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History

With most U.S. troops now withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s understandable that many Americans might not realize the extent of the U.S. military’s global reach. In fact, hundreds of American military bases and hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members remain stationed across the world. Though not widely recognized, the U.S. maintains a network of bases across the planet – far more than any nation has ever had – stretching from Honduras to Oman, Germany to Japan, and Singapore to Djibouti.

Like many Americans, I hardly gave military bases any thought for most of my life. Scholar and former CIA advisor Chalmers Johnson described this attitude well in 2004: “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize – or do not want to recognize – that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

When we do think about these bases, we usually believe they’re necessary for safety and global stability. That belief has been reinforced by U.S. leaders since World War II and the Cold War. As a result, the presence of so many American military facilities overseas feels normal to most people. The idea of a foreign government operating bases on U.S. soil, however, is almost unimaginable.

While no foreign military has a permanent, standalone base inside the United States, the U.S. currently operates around 800 bases in other countries. Even decades after major conflicts like World War II and the Korean War, there are still 174 U.S. base locations in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. These figures come from the Pentagon. Additional bases can be found in nearly 80 countries, including Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Colombia, Bulgaria, Kenya, and Qatar. Few Americans realize just how many of these sites exist or that no empire in history has matched this scale of military presence abroad.

Despite this massive network, coverage in the mainstream media is limited. Even during debates about shutting down the prison at Guantánamo Bay, few public figures questioned why the U.S. has a base on Cuban land to begin with. Seldom do leaders or commentators ask whether so many foreign bases are necessary – or if the country can afford the roughly $156 billion spent on them each year. And rarely do people consider how we would react if a rival power like Russia, Iran, or China tried to build a military base anywhere close to U.S. territory, let alone within it.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Johnson warned, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.” His words struck a chord with me. Motivated by his research and by how little attention this issue receives, I’ve spent years trying to study what he described as an “empire of bases.” Although it may seem like these sites enhance security, I’ve come to believe the opposite: that this vast network of bases has made us less safe. They’ve negatively affected service members, local communities near the bases, and taxpayers funding it all.

For over 70 years, the United States has been a Base Nation. It’s time we truly acknowledge that reality.

The Base Nation’s Scale

The U.S. operates roughly 800 military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C., and they vary widely in size and purpose. Some are massive and resemble small cities – like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and the lesser-known joint Navy and Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These bases support large infrastructures, which include schools, hospitals, power stations, housing areas, and other familiar amenities often described as “Burger Kings and bowling alleys.”

At the other end of the spectrum are much smaller outposts known as “lily pads” or “cooperative security locations.” These bases, often equipped with drones, surveillance aircraft, or pre-positioned weapons and supplies, are becoming more common in areas of Africa and Eastern Europe where U.S. forces previously had little or no footprint.

Other installations worldwide include airfields and ports, training grounds, missile testing centers, storage facilities, nuclear weapons sites, and communications stations. Military schools, CIA-run paramilitary bases, intelligence outposts, and former secret CIA prisons are also part of the broader U.S. base network. Even leisure sites run by the military, such as resorts in the Bavarian Alps or Seoul, are considered part of the system. Worldwide, the U.S. military operates over 170 golf courses.

The Pentagon’s global presence is actually even broader. U.S. troops are stationed in around 160 countries and territories. This includes small detachments of Marines guarding embassies and larger groups, like the 3,500 personnel advising and training the Iraqi Army. The Navy’s fleet of 11 aircraft carriers also counts – they're often referred to as “four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory,” acting as mobile bases at sea. Meanwhile, the American military continues to grow its footprint in space.

The U.S. is not alone in maintaining foreign bases, but no other country comes close in scale. Britain still has about seven overseas bases, France maintains five, and Russia has around eight, mostly in former Soviet states. Japan recently established its first foreign base since World War II, located in Djibouti alongside U.S. and French forces. Nations such as South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel are each reported to have at least one base abroad. China is also rumored to be pursuing its first overseas installation. In total, all other countries combined operate roughly 30 foreign bases, which means the U.S. controls about 95% of the world’s military sites located outside of a nation’s own territory.

“Forward” Forever?

While the United States began setting up military bases abroad not long after becoming independent, the massive global military footprint seen today didn’t begin to take shape until World War II. In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the “destroyers-for-bases” agreement with Great Britain, granting the U.S. 99-year leases for military sites in several British colonies. Once the U.S. officially entered the war, the pace of base construction surged. By 1945, new bases were being built at a rate of 112 each month, and by the war’s end, the number of installations had climbed to over 2,000. In just five years, the U.S. created the world’s first global base network – far larger than even the British Empire's once-vast military presence.

Following World War II, the U.S. gave up roughly half of those bases, but many were kept, forming what historian George Stambuk described as a “permanent institution.” The number of foreign bases jumped again during the Korean and Vietnam wars, then dropped slightly after each conflict. By the time the Soviet Union fell in 1991, there were still about 1,600 U.S. bases overseas, including around 300,000 American troops stationed across Europe.

In the 1990s, the U.S. military closed about 60% of its foreign outposts. However, the overall base system remained largely in place. Even though more bases were later shut down – especially in Europe and parts of East Asia – and no rival superpower existed, around 250,000 American troops were still stationed around the world. While the number of overseas bases today is roughly half what it was in 1989, U.S. bases are now spread across twice as many countries – jumping from about 40 to nearly 80.

In recent years, major spending efforts have added to this global presence. President Obama’s “Pacific pivot” led to billions being poured into military projects in Asia, even though the region already had a strong U.S. presence. Billions more have gone into establishing permanent bases across every country in the Persian Gulf except Iran. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Pentagon has been investing large sums in building brand-new bases, even as it shuts others down.

Since the start of the Cold War, the belief that the U.S. should maintain a vast network of overseas bases and keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed abroad has become something close to a sacred rule in foreign and national security policy. This long-standing idea, now nearly 70 years old, is called the “forward strategy.” It originally argued that the U.S. needed to keep strong military forces and permanent bases near the Soviet Union to limit and “contain” its supposed drive to spread influence.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, this forward strategy barely changed. Scholar Chalmers Johnson began to question the vast U.S. base network once he saw that the overall system of what he called the “American Raj” stayed intact, even though its main rival had disappeared.

More than twenty years after the end of the Cold War, people from both sides of the political aisle still accept without question that a global military presence is key to national defense. During George W. Bush’s presidency, his administration claimed that foreign bases “maintained the peace” and served as “symbols of… U.S. commitments to allies and friends.” Likewise, under President Obama, officials declared that keeping Americans and the world safe “requires a global security posture.”

In Washington, support for the forward strategy continues to dominate. Lawmakers from both parties, security analysts, military leaders, journalists, and nearly everyone within the government’s inner circles have stood behind it. Anyone questioning the need for so many overseas bases and troops is often dismissed as either an unrealistic pacifist or as promoting the kind of isolationism that allowed Hitler’s rise in Europe.

The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Chalmers Johnson pointed out, there are plenty of reasons to question the current system of U.S. bases overseas. One of the biggest is the financial cost. Keeping troops stationed abroad is expensive. The RAND Corporation reports that even when countries like Germany and Japan help cover some expenses, it still costs U.S. taxpayers an extra $10,000 to $40,000 a year for each service member stationed overseas compared to one based at home. When you factor in transportation, the higher cost of living, and the need to provide services like housing, healthcare, and schools for military families, the total grows fast – especially with more than half a million U.S. troops, dependents, and civilian employees on foreign bases at any given time.

Based on a conservative estimate, maintaining these installations and the people tied to them cost at least $85 billion in 2014 – more than any federal agency received, aside from the Department of Defense. If you add the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, that figure jumps to $156 billion or more.

While this setup is costly for taxpayers, it’s extremely profitable for private military contractors such as DynCorp International and KBR, formerly part of Halliburton. Johnson once wrote, “Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries,” pointing to the billions these companies earn annually for building and running U.S. bases around the world.

At the same time, many of the communities that host these foreign bases don’t see the benefits that are often promised. Some rural or economically struggling areas may get a temporary boost from construction, but over the long haul, bases typically don’t produce stable or thriving local economies. Compared to other types of development, they use up a lot of space while employing relatively few people and contributing little to lasting growth. Studies have shown that when bases close, the impact is usually small – and in some cases, the area ends up better off. Closed bases are often turned into housing, shopping centers, schools, or other productive developments.

For the U.S., spending tens of billions of dollars each year on overseas bases means less investment at home – in areas like public transit, schools, affordable housing, and healthcare. These sectors not only provide better returns for the economy but also create more jobs than military spending does. Just imagine how $85 billion per year could help rebuild the nation’s aging infrastructure.

The Human Toll

Aside from the financial burden, there are serious human costs tied to maintaining U.S. military bases overseas. Families of service members often face emotional stress from long-distance deployments, constant relocations, and being separated for extended periods. These challenges take a toll on their well-being. Overseas bases have also been linked to high rates of sexual assault in the military. It’s estimated that around 30% of women in uniform experience sexual violence during their service, with many of these assaults happening at foreign bases. In countries like South Korea, industries centered around prostitution have developed specifically to cater to U.S. troops, raising serious ethical concerns.

Globally, many bases have also led to environmental harm, including chemical spills, accidental contamination, and even deliberate dumping of toxic materials. Crimes committed by U.S. troops have stirred outrage in local communities for decades. In Okinawa and other locations, there have been numerous cases of sexual violence by American personnel against local women. In some places, such as Diego Garcia and parts of Greenland, people were forcibly removed from their homes to make space for military construction.

Despite talk of promoting freedom and democracy, many U.S. bases are located in authoritarian or undemocratic nations, such as Bahrain and Qatar. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, these bases have fueled resentment and helped stir anti-American feelings. The U.S. military presence near Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia was even cited by Osama bin Laden as one reason behind the 9/11 attacks and served as a rallying point for al-Qaeda recruitment.

While these impacts may go unnoticed in the United States, overseas bases often lead to resentment, resistance, and damaged relationships with host nations. Yet few Americans realize that these bases play a significant role in how the U.S. is viewed around the world – and not always in a positive way.

Creating a New Cold War, Base by Base

It’s far from certain that having military bases around the world actually improves national security or supports lasting peace. With no rival superpower to confront, it’s hard to argue that bases located thousands of miles from U.S. borders are truly necessary to defend the country – or even its allies. In fact, the global sprawl of bases has often enabled military interventions, drone attacks, and wars of choice that have ended in disaster, costing countless lives and leaving destruction in places like Vietnam and Iraq.

Because these bases make it easier to launch military action, they’ve made war a more appealing – and often default – option for U.S. leaders. Anthropologist Catherine Lutz once observed that when a hammer is the only tool in your foreign policy kit, every problem starts to look like a nail. As a result, far from preventing conflict, foreign bases have often made it more likely.

Supporters of the outdated forward strategy continue to claim that these bases “deter” threats and help maintain global order. This idea has been accepted as fact by many in Washington, though few offer strong evidence to back it up. While there is some support for the idea that military presence can stop immediate threats, there’s very little proof that bases abroad are useful for long-term deterrence. Even the Bush administration and the RAND Corporation – hardly pacifist groups – have found that advances in transport and logistics reduce the need to permanently station troops overseas. In most real defense scenarios or peacekeeping missions, troops could be sent from U.S. soil just as quickly as from foreign bases, especially with modern airlift systems, sealift capacity, agreements with allies, and pre-positioned supplies. These options also cost far less and avoid creating unnecessary tension.

There’s also reason to question whether bases make host countries safer. Instead of offering protection, the presence of U.S. installations can actually make those countries targets for enemy attacks or terrorism – putting both locals and Americans at risk.

Rather than calming hotspots, these bases often escalate regional tension and stand in the way of diplomacy. Stationing U.S. forces near the borders of countries like Iran, China, or Russia can increase their sense of vulnerability, prompting them to expand their own military capabilities. If roles were reversed and China built even a single base in Mexico or the Caribbean, American leaders would likely view it as a serious threat. This mirrors the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, where the U.S. response to Soviet missiles being placed just 90 miles from its border brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Building and maintaining this vast network of bases also pushes other nations to develop their own, creating what could quickly turn into a competitive “base race.” U.S. outposts near Chinese or Russian territory risk stirring up new versions of the Cold War conflict. While U.S. officials may argue that expanding military presence in the Pacific is a defensive move meant to preserve peace, it’s unlikely that China views it that way. From their perspective, each new base adds to the pressure, not the stability.

In the end, these efforts may bring about the very threats they’re meant to prevent. Just as the war on terror has spread instability rather than ending it, new bases built to deter China or Russia may actually encourage the confrontations U.S. leaders claim they want to avoid. Rather than making the world safer, this strategy may increase the likelihood of war and leave the United States more exposed.

Behind the Wire

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell speech in 1961, he issued a well-known warning about the growing influence of what he called the “military-industrial-congressional complex” – the powerful network of defense, political, and corporate interests that had emerged from World War II. As Chalmers Johnson later emphasized, the U.S. military’s global network of bases – still standing strong more than 70 years later – is clear proof that Eisenhower’s warning went unheeded. Today, America operates in a state of ongoing military readiness, with its economy, government, and international role deeply tied to preparing for war.

These overseas bases reflect the military’s reach into the world and into Americans' daily lives. The story of these massive “Little Americas” – filled with concrete structures, fast food outlets, and military gear – tells the broader story of U.S. policy in the postwar era. Whether we realize it or not, over the past seven decades, we’ve all ended up living “behind the wire,” as service members often describe life on base.

Many believe these foreign bases have helped protect us. But in reality, they’ve created a constant war-ready culture that has made both Americans and the rest of the world less safe – bringing harm not only abroad but also here at home.