Lancelot said:With nukes and the mobility of our armed forces, just how important are foreign bases anyway?
Lance
They are still important.
1) Having forces in theater allows us to defend the receiving location, the air/sea bridge, and to hold critical bad-guy elements at risk while we build up. Everything is much harder or impossible if we don't have a foot in the door.
2) It takes a long time to move stuff from the US, and not every adversary will be as accomodating (stupid?) as Saddam was in 1990. Airlift is fast, but if there's no place to stop and stage aircraft/crews, then it takes longer. Aerial refueling isn't the answer when there's a lot of stuff to be moved. And, the vast majority (90+ %) of cargo needed for a big operation must still move by sea (= many weeks to marshal, onload, steam to the offload locaton, offload, onward movement to folks who need it). We can get around some of ths by prepositioning stuff afloat (as we do now), but that's not always a great answer.
3) US presence in many of these places is one big way to demonstrate a committment to regional security agreements. Some folks would argue the merits of various cases, but it is clearly a powerful tool. If we've established a strong relationship with a host nation, we're more likely to be allowed to use our base in their country to conduct operations that the host nation may not strongly support. Conversely, if we have no bases in the area and we have to start from scratch to get permission to use a site, it's much easier for the local governments to come up with reasons to say "no."