The Case For and Against Shifting U.S. Military Bases to the Western Hemisphere

Introduction

The United States maintains approximately 800 military bases in more than 70 countries worldwide, constituting one of history's most extensive global military footprints. This distribution reflects decades of strategy focused on forward presence, particularly in Europe and Asia.

Recently, there have been discussions about potentially shifting more military resources toward the Western Hemisphere while reducing its presence in Asia and Europe.

FAF report examines the arguments supporting and opposing such a strategic reorientation, considering the complex geopolitical, economic, and security implications of such a shift.

Arguments Supporting Increased Western Hemisphere Presence

Geographic Proximity and Strategic Priority

The Western Hemisphere—North and South America—represents America’s immediate neighborhood, making it a logical priority for defense planning. The deep geographic, economic, and cultural ties make the region critical to the United States' national security, peace, and prosperity. Yet despite this fundamental reality, U.S. military planning and force deployment has consistently prioritized distant regions, creating a paradoxical situation where America maintains extensive military capabilities thousands of miles away while potentially underinvesting in security much closer to home.

Historical Precedent

The Monroe Doctrine

America’s concern for hemispheric security has a historical precedent dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which declared that the United States would consider any European attempt to extend influence in the Americas “dangerous to our peace and safety.”

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.”

Countering 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.”

Security analysts note that “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.

Resource Efficiency and Strategic Focus

Proponents of “offshore balancing” argue that by limiting the areas the U.S. military is committed to defending and forcing other states to pull their weight, it would reduce resources Washington must devote to defense, allow for more significant investment and consumption at home, and put fewer American lives in harm’s way.

Today, allies routinely free-ride on American protection, a problem that has only grown since the Cold War ended. Within NATO, for example, the United States accounts for 46 percent of the alliance’s aggregate GDP yet contributes about 75 percent of its military spending.

Addressing Regional 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.

Reducing Terrorism Risk

Offshore balancing would potentially reduce the risk of terrorism. Liberal hegemony commits the United States to spreading democracy in unfamiliar places, which sometimes requires military occupation and always involves interfering with local political arrangements. Such efforts invariably foster nationalist resentment, and because opponents are too weak to confront the United States directly, they often turn to terrorism.

Arguments Against Shifting to the Western Hemisphere

Weakening Deterrence and Alliance Commitments

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.”

Combat-credible forward posture in the Western Pacific and Europe can offset the United States’ time-distance disadvantage and buttress deterrence and defense in these key regions.

A robust forward posture could strengthen deterrence by complicating Chinese and Russian strategic calculus and providing a formidable defense force already in the theater at the start of a conflict.

Current Strategic Priorities

The 2022 National Defense Strategy explicitly identifies deterring aggression as a priority, “prioritizing the PRC challenge in the Indo-Pacific region, then the Russia challenge in Europe.” Shifting focus away from these theaters could undermine these stated priorities.

In Europe, the perceived resurgence of Russia as a geopolitical threat—particularly after the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine—informed decisions to base U.S. forces in new locations and reactivate bases in former locations.

In the Indo-Pacific, strategic competition with China—the U.S. military’s “pacing threat”—motivated DOD to deploy more regional forces.

Power Vacuums and Strategic Competition

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.

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, and reducing this presence could destabilize the region.

Diminished Crisis Response Capabilities

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.

By providing a formidable defense force already in theater at the start of a conflict, forward-postured U.S. forces could help blunt Chinese or Russian attacks and buy time for critical reinforcements.

Economic Considerations

While some argue that placing bases closer to home would be more economical, it’s not clear this would save money. As noted in one analysis: “Such policies may not save money. After all, sending troops abroad costs money. At the same time, many of the bases in Europe and Asia are already built (hence, are sunk costs), and host governments subsidize the infrastructure”.

Complications of Western Hemisphere Expansion

Increasing U.S. military presence in the Western Hemisphere comes with its challenges. For example, the agreement with Colombia for new bases contains provisions for diplomatic immunity for U.S. military and civilians, meaning U.S. forces would not be bound by Colombian law.

There are also concerns about the lack of financial oversight and environmental remediation for damage that U.S. military presence might cause.

Risk of Selective Isolationism

Critics argue that offshore balancing could lead to “selective isolationism that easily turns into delayed intervention.” By retreating from global commitments, the United States might find itself forced to make more dramatic and costly interventions later when problems that could have been managed through forward presence spiral out of control.

Balanced Approach

A Potential Middle Ground

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 emphasize several key elements:

Enhanced Partnership Capacity

A core component would be strengthening the capabilities of allies and partners to defend their interests. In Europe, this means pushing NATO allies to meet defense spending targets. 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, unmanned systems, improved intelligence and surveillance capabilities, and enhanced cyber operations could provide options for influence and response without large forward-deployed forces.

Integration with Broader Strategy

Military rebalancing cannot be considered in isolation from broader diplomatic and economic relationships. In the Western Hemisphere, increased military engagement should complement expanded economic ties and diplomatic outreach to produce a comprehensive regional strategy.

Conclusion

The debate over basing more U.S. forces in the Western Hemisphere while reducing its presence in Asia and Europe highlights fundamental questions about America’s global role, resource allocation, and strategic priorities. While advocates of such a shift point to geographic proximity, historical precedent, and potential efficiency gains, critics emphasize the risks to deterrence, alliance relationships, and global stability.

As global power dynamics evolve, America’s defense strategy must adapt accordingly—potentially including a more significant emphasis on the Western Hemisphere without abandoning critical commitments elsewhere.

Any rebalancing would require careful consideration of immediate security needs and long-term strategic goals, close consultation among allies, innovative operational concepts, and integration with broader diplomatic and economic initiatives.

The ultimate 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—balancing commitments abroad with attention to challenges closer to home.