This is why America fails at downsizing our 800 military bases around the world
[center]
[/center]
[i][b]Picture above [/b]-The Republic of Niger. Where the USA is desperate to keep its drone airbase. [/i] Level set – I'm not against robust US defenses. However, I AM opposed to throwing billions of dollars away on innumerable far-flung bases located in all the world's $hitholes. While we watch Ukranian civilians get bombed to smithereens. Who's driving the foreign policy bus here?
Case in point – the Pentagon is desperate to keep its base in Niger. (Please note that Niger and Nigeria are entirely different nations. The Republic of Niger “is a snail on the tail of a frog on a log in a hole at the bottom of the sea" . . .) The US base in Niger is one which both the people and government of that nation don't want. See link below. In case the map at top doesn't provide enough context, here's a brief recap of the Republic of Niger.
- Landlocked – no ports of any kind
- Little strategic value for spying/intelligence. Niger's neighbors are equally irrelevant (Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Libya, and Nigeria).
- Niger is mostly desert. In the hot season, temps range from 108-113 degrees Fahrenheit. In the “cold” season daytime temps drop to 90, as long as you stay out of the midday sun.
- 90% of the population are either rural villagers or nomadic herdsmen. The total population is 25 million.
- Niger's gross domestic product is $17 billion dollars. Which is less 1/3rd that of Wyoming, the US state with the smallest GDP. However, Nigeria is a major exporter of . . . URANIUM!
Uranium? I think we may have just found the secret reason the USA wants to hang around. But most of Niger's uranium goes to France, the UK, Canada, and Japan. If they consider Niger strategically important, let THEM dicker with the regime for military bases.
The USA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars arming and training Niger's military over the past decade. And then, about 8 months ago, the palace guards seized power. Haven't we seen this movie before? If this sounds suspiciously like how the USA got roped into Arabian politics and corruption decades ago, go to the head of the class.
I'm not going to do a deep dive on which of the US 800 military bases are irrelevant. But our drone air base in Niger seems to have limited value. It's been under construction since the Obama administration, and still isn't finished 8 years later. Let's pack up our radio-controlled model planes and take them home. And vow to make better decisions in the future.
I'm just sayin' . . .
The US attempts a new military deal with Niger in a last ditch effort to stay (msn.com)
Special thanks - kudos to House Democrats for helping pass the bipartisan military aid package for Ukraine this week. Republicans, you should be ashamed.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
As you know, I am in favor of not only aid to Ukraine but for a bigger defense budget given the current world climate.
But there are no doubt many military bases around the world that we do not need and in many cases put the men and women in uniform on those bases at risk.
At home? Naturally. NATO bases in Europe? Sure. In South Korea and Japan? Of course.
But I'd question some of the choices in Africa and the Middle East as well.
@beckyromero Argentina applied for NATO membership this week. I'm fascinated by this. Are they proposing to send troops to Europe, to defend against a Russian ground invasion? That was the original mission of NATO.
There's an old adage: "Generals always prepare to re-fight the last war". Which helps explain why
1 - we have 11 aircraft carrier battle groups. 2 - B1 and B2 nuclear capable bombers, in an era of cruise missles and ICBMs 3 - No apparent defense against space weapons or state sponsored attacks on the US grid.
@SusanInFlorida [quote]Argentina applied for NATO membership this week. I'm fascinated by this. Are they proposing to send troops to Europe, to defend against a Russian ground invasion? That was the original mission of NATO. [/quote]
Argentina did [u]NOT[/u] apply to become a member of NATO.
They applied to become a NATO "global partner," like Australia, Columbia, Japan and Mongolia, among others.
Did you know that even Russia is a partner with NATO, part of the Partnership for Peace? (Their participation is currently suspended.)
NATO Charter
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
[quote]There's an old adage: "Generals always prepare to re-fight the last war". Which helps explain why
1 - we have 11 aircraft carrier battle groups. 2 - B1 and B2 nuclear capable bombers, in an era of cruise missles and ICBMs 3 - No apparent defense against space weapons or state sponsored attacks on the US grid.[/quote]
Did Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan fight the last war? Or Admiral Dewey? Or General Pershing? How about Generals Bradley and Patton? Or Admirals Nimitz, Halsey and Spruance? Or Generals Schwarzkopf and McCaffrey?
Yes, we have 11 aircraft carrier battle groups.
But a mid-life nuclear refueling takes four years and the last carrier to undergo it, (USS [i]George Washington[/i]), ran two years behind that schedule. The carrier USS [i]John C. Stennis[/i] is undergoing refueling now and, upon completion in 2025, USS [i]Harry S. Truman[/i] will be next.
This means, that at any given time, there are only 10 operational aircraft carriers. And that doesn't account for routine maintainence and transit time.
I would prefer 15 aircraft carrier battle groups, such as what we had in the 1980s.
ICBM's have been around for over 60 years. The reason why we (and the Russians and others) have bombers capable of delivering nuclear bombs or launching nuclear-armed ALCMs is because, unlike an ICBM, a bomber can be recalled. With ICBMs, in the event of a nuclear attack, you either use them or lose them.
Your point #3 is something that needs to be addressed. But defense against space weapon platforms is extremely complex and probably best handled in space itself. Defense against attacks on the U.S. energy grid would be very costly. Which is why, until that technology can become feasible, our best defense in that case is a good offense to help insure that possible state-sponsored terrorist don't acquire the capability to make such attacks.
Well, Russia joined the Partners for Peace program on June 22, 1994 when Boris Yeltsin was president of Russia. Yeltsin received 57% of the vote in 1991 (dictators hardly settle for a percentage that low).
NATO suspended Russia from the program in 2014 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine (by which time Vladimir Putin was firmly in control as a de-facto dictator.
Nations can go change over time, you know. It was worth trying.
