February 16, 2006 4:52 PM   Subscribe

is there a map or list of all the military bases the "west" (read USA/NATO) has ?

just asking, it seems to me occupying all those countries doesn't do any good.
posted by Substrata to Law & Government (12 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
You could try this page at GlobalSecurity.org as a start. It lists US facilities.
posted by Fat Guy at 5:06 PM on February 16, 2006

Also see the answers in this thread for more general information about military bases.
posted by russilwvong at 5:07 PM on February 16, 2006

Response by poster: thank you very much so far.

no concise and accurate summary alas, there must be a list somewhere, don't you think ?
i mean, all those bases, there must be someone listing them.
posted by Substrata at 5:17 PM on February 16, 2006

How about this from military.com?
posted by Fat Guy at 5:21 PM on February 16, 2006

Response by poster: thank you for your effort, but no A for Afghanistan ?

i want all "western" bases abroad.
posted by Substrata at 5:34 PM on February 16, 2006

I thought about this question and decided to ask the man himself, Don Rumsfeld. So here is what he had to say...

Is that what you wanted? Well you might be able to find info here maybe. You could always write them a note asking them the same. Tell them you are writing a thesis or something. I'm sure they would be happy to help.
posted by JJ86 at 6:04 PM on February 16, 2006

Troops are deployed in Afghanistan, not based in Afghanistan, so Fat Guy's link answers your question, at least for US forces.

Here's a map of all US Bases in the world, and here are the domestic locations.

This page, from globalsecurity.org, has a list of all troops deployed, including Counterterrorism operations (there's Afghanistan!), Counterdrug operations (Kentucky?), Southwest Asia (Most of the middle East), and Europe (the former Yugoslavia). There's also a list of Exercises, in case you were wondering what US forces were doing in, say, Tunisia. There is a also a list of where the Carrier groups are.
posted by jgee at 6:14 PM on February 16, 2006

If you're interested in the locations of bases, you might be interested in The Pentagon's New Map (hint: not a map; it started as an Esquire article), which tries to explain why the bases are where they are. There's also an actual map.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:38 PM on February 16, 2006

Cool map, thanks kirkaracha.
posted by jgee at 6:42 PM on February 16, 2006

Don't forget Poland Romania!
P.S. And one can only marvel at the manly names the Pentagon and WH have mad-libbed for WoT ops: Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, Infinite Justice. Booyah!
posted by rob511 at 8:26 PM on February 16, 2006

just asking, it seems to me occupying all those countries doesn't do any good.

You do realize that there's an enormous difference between having a base in a country, and "occupying"?

If you want operational bases, that's probably easy to get. If you want all countries where there are military personnel excluding the usual embassy military liaison folks, that's going to be a bit more difficult -- and would come very close to a list of all the countries in the world. There are all sorts of minor tasks -- training, officer exchanges, counterterrorism, intelligence -- that people are assigned to, and they don't need a base, just an office.

For example, there's no mention of Thailand or Tajikistan on the "base" list, but those are countries where we for damn sure have personnel.

Does it do any good, as you ask? The standard answer would be that it does a lot of good. Modern military thinking is that joint exercises and operations build relationships and trust and reduce the likelihood of war. The US believes that in training individuals in foreign militaries they increase the professionalism and meritocratic elements. In less favorable circumstances, these people can serve as our policy proxies, or feed us information. This obviously also has a downside (such as the deserved infamy of the School of the Americas).

In a broader sense, you could say that it's a bad thing that one superpower has its fingers in so many pies, but the counterargument is basically that if we weren't there being a country's best friend, somebody else might be, such as Russia or China. (In truth China is kicking our butts on the civilian side.) It may not be right in some ethical frameworks, but the US certainly sees it as necessary for our strategic purposes, and believes it also generally makes the world safer.
posted by dhartung at 11:35 PM on February 16, 2006

Response by poster: thanks a lot guys, esp kirkaracha.
and dhartung, good points.
posted by Substrata at 9:24 AM on February 17, 2006

« Older An Anomaly of The Will   |   Extracting audio from Olympus VN-900 recorder Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.