A Better Way to Defend America: Rebalancing U.S. Military Presence Toward the Western Hemisphere

Introduction

The United States maintains one of the most expansive global military footprints in history, with nearly 172,000 active-duty troops stationed across 178 countries and approximately 750 bases worldwide.

This distribution reflects decades of strategy focused on forward presence, particularly in Europe and Asia. However, as strategic challenges evolve and resources remain constrained, a compelling case exists for reconsidering this deployment pattern.

Shifting more military resources to the Western Hemisphere while strategically reducing presence in Asia and Europe could potentially create a more sustainable and effective defense posture that better protects America’s most vital interests while encouraging greater burden-sharing with allies.

America’s Current Global Military Posture

The United States Armed Forces—comprising the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard—maintain their largest overseas concentrations in East Asia and Europe.

As of 2022, the largest deployments were in Japan (53,973 troops), Germany (35,781), and South Korea (25,372). This distribution reflects Cold War priorities and subsequent commitments that have remained unchanged despite significant global security shifts.

The massive global footprint comes with substantial costs. In 2022, the U.S. spent $877 billion on its military, far exceeding any other nation.

Meanwhile, military leaders and analysts increasingly warn that America’s armed forces are stretched thin.

Heritage Foundation researchers bluntly stated, “The U.S. military is no longer capable of winning multiple major wars at a time. It’s not clear we’ll be able to deter—or if necessary, win—a single war against our most powerful rival, China”.

This overextension creates a strategic dilemma: maintaining global commitments risks inadequate capabilities in any single theater, while the current approach to prioritization still leaves critical vulnerabilities closer to home.

The Geographical Reality: Proximity Matters

The Western Hemisphere—North and South America—represents America’s immediate neighborhood. The Western Hemisphere Strategic Framework states, “Our deep geographic, economic, and cultural ties make the region critical to United States national security, peace, and prosperity.”

Yet despite this fundamental reality, U.S. military planning and force deployment have consistently prioritized distant regions.

This imbalance creates a paradoxical situation where America maintains extensive military capabilities thousands of miles away while potentially underinvesting in security much closer to home.

As history has repeatedly demonstrated, threats in the Western Hemisphere can directly and immediately impact U.S. security interests.

The Monroe Doctrine and Hemispheric Defense

America’s concern for hemispheric security is not new. In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would become known as the Monroe Doctrine, declaring that the United States would consider any European attempt to extend influence in the Americas “as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

This doctrine became a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for nearly two centuries, though its application has varied considerably.

The doctrine essentially established that the Western Hemisphere represented a unique security zone for the United States, where external interference would not be tolerated.

As the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) observed: “If history is any guide, the United States puts itself at risk when ignoring Western Hemispheric security affairs.”

This historical perspective remains relevant today. The CSBA study identified key patterns when examining historical challenges to U.S. interests in the region:

Adversaries have repeatedly exploited security challenges in Latin America to divert U.S. attention and resources from more strategically vital regions, often imposing disproportionate costs.

Most U.S. strategic competitors have been constrained in their ability to project conventional military power into the Western Hemisphere, typically compensating by seeking to acquire local basing, access, and proxies.

These patterns are increasingly evident in contemporary competition with China and Russia, expanding their influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The Case for Hemispheric Rebalancing

Rising External Influences

China and Russia have significantly increased their economic, diplomatic, and military engagement throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. China has become a significant trading partner and investor across the region while also expanding military-to-military relationships.

According to CSBA, “Although modest, Chinese arms sales to states in the region—often at ‘friendship prices’—have increased in recent years, with Venezuela a particularly favored buyer.”

Russia has likewise maintained influence in the region, particularly with countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

These developments echo historical patterns where adversaries seek footholds in the Western Hemisphere to complicate U.S. strategic calculations.

As noted by security analysts, “The United States is embroiled in global competition with China, Iran, and Russia, powers seeking to expand their influence in the Western Hemisphere and undermine U.S. interests.”

This competition takes place while the U.S. military focus remains heavily oriented toward other regions.

Addressing Security Challenges

The Western Hemisphere faces significant security challenges beyond excellent power competition. These include transnational criminal organizations, political instability, economic challenges, and natural disasters—all of which can directly spillover effects on the United States.

The Western Hemisphere Strategic Framework acknowledges these challenges: “Repressive dictatorial regimes threaten regional security, a situation exacerbated by the encroachment of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and adversarial countries exerting malign influence.”

These threats create conditions that directly impact U.S. homeland security through drug trafficking, migration pressures, and potential terrorism.

A more substantial U.S. military presence in the region could enhance capabilities to address these challenges while demonstrating commitment to regional partners. As the CSBA recommends, America should “develop and execute a strategy of hemispheric defense designed to maintain stability in the region and uphold the Monroe Doctrine.”

Resource Efficiency and Strategic Focus

Rebalancing toward the Western Hemisphere could potentially create a more efficient use of limited military resources. Forces stationed closer to home generally require less extensive logistical support and can deploy more rapidly to protect core U.S. interests. Additionally, personnel stationed in the Americas could maintain higher readiness at a lower cost than those forward-deployed across oceans.

The concept aligns with broader strategic thinking about prioritization. One Heritage Foundation report argues, “America’s military isn’t resourced to be everywhere at once… Until the U.S. military is resourced and postured to do so, the United States must resist the temptation to be everywhere at once”.

Challenges and Risks of Reducing Presence in Asia and Europe

Impact on Deterrence and Alliances

A significant reduction of U.S. forces in Asia and Europe would carry substantial risks. America’s forward presence has long been essential to deterring aggression and reassuring allies. The Department of Defense states that the U.S. military presence in these regions is “a major deterrent to aggression around the world.”

The current National Defense Strategy explicitly recognizes “the potential risk of tensions and open conflict with Russia or China” and calls for “integrated deterrence” to prevent it.

Reducing forward-deployed forces could potentially weaken this deterrent effect and embolden adversaries.

Additionally, any significant rebalancing would impact longstanding alliance relationships. U.S. security guarantees underpin regional stability in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Researchers note that “European allies depend on U.S. security guarantees, especially with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.”

Strategic Competition and Power Vacuums

Reducing U.S. presence in Asia and Europe could create power vacuums that China and Russia would likely exploit. As Foreign Policy magazine observes, “Asian powers are increasingly setting their strategic sights on Europe,” with China playing both sides of the war in Ukraine. A diminished U.S. presence could accelerate these trends.

In the Indo-Pacific, where China’s assertiveness continues to grow, U.S. forward presence is critical in maintaining regional stability.

The U.S. system of alliances and partnerships serves as a counterweight to Chinese ambitions. The USSC report notes that “Chinese counter-intervention systems have undermined America’s ability to project power into the Indo-Pacific, raising the risk that China could use limited force to achieve a fait accompli victory before America can respond.”

Response Capabilities for Global Crises

Forward-deployed forces provide rapid response capabilities for various contingencies, from military crises to humanitarian disasters. Concentrating troops in the Western Hemisphere could extend response times for emergencies in other regions, potentially reducing America’s ability to shape events and protect interests globally.

A Balanced Approach: Finding the Right Mix

The most viable approach may be a careful rebalancing rather than a dramatic shift. This would involve increasing capabilities in the Western Hemisphere while maintaining an essential presence in critical regions of Asia and Europe. Such an approach would need to emphasize several key elements:

Enhancing Partnership Capacity

A core component of any rebalancing strategy must be strengthening the capabilities of allies and partners to defend their interests. The Heritage Foundation suggests that the United States should “prioritize defending the U.S. homeland and denying China’s imperial ambitions while empowering allies and partners to lead efforts to defend against lesser threats.”

This means pushing NATO allies to meet defense spending targets in Europe while developing more robust indigenous capabilities. It requires deepening defense cooperation with key partners like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India in Asia. In the Western Hemisphere, it means investing in partner capacity to address shared security challenges.

Leveraging Technology and New Operational Concepts

Advances in military technology could potentially allow for reduced physical presence while maintaining or enhancing capabilities. Long-range precision weapons, uncontrolled systems, improved intelligence and surveillance capabilities, and enhanced cyber operations could provide options for influence and response without large forward-deployed forces.

New operational concepts, such as the “integrated deterrence” emphasized in the current National Defense Strategy, seek to combine military, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts across domains. These approaches might allow for a more efficient distribution of forces while maintaining strategic effect.

Diplomatic and Economic Dimensions

Military rebalancing cannot be considered in isolation from broader diplomatic and economic relationships. As The Diplomat notes regarding Asia, “The European Union needs to contribute to the deterrence system as it currently exists in East Asia, particularly regarding Taiwan.” This highlights the importance of coordinating military adjustments with diplomatic initiatives and economic partnerships.

In the Western Hemisphere, increased military engagement should complement expanded economic ties and diplomatic outreach. As noted in the Western Hemisphere Strategic Framework, “Our continued strong and positive engagement reduces the space for thugs, gangs, drug cartels, TCOs, and adversarial countries to engage in predatory activity in the region.”

Conclusion

Toward a More Sustainable Defense Strategy

The proposal to base more U.S. forces in the Western Hemisphere and fewer in Asia and Europe represents a significant departure from decades of American defense strategy. While a complete reorientation would carry substantial risks, a careful rebalancing deserves serious consideration as the United States faces evolving threats and enduring resource constraints.

The historical foundations for prioritizing hemispheric defense remain relevant today. James Monroe recognized two centuries ago that America’s security is intimately tied to developments in its immediate neighborhood. Contemporary challenges—from great power competition to transnational threats—underscore this reality.

A more balanced approach would maintain essential capabilities in critical regions while gradually strengthening America’s position in the Western Hemisphere. This would require close consultation with allies, innovative operational concepts, and integration with broader diplomatic and economic initiatives.

Ultimately, the goal should be a sustainable defense posture that protects America’s most vital interests, strengthens key alliances, and creates a more resilient global security architecture.

As global power dynamics evolve, America’s defense strategy must adapt accordingly—potentially including a greater emphasis on the hemisphere we call home.