U.S. Military Overseas Basing: New Developments and Oversight Issues for Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (20 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Jan. 26, 2006 |
| Report Number |
RL33148 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Robert D. Critchlow, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Oct. 31, 2005 (17 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
On August 16, 2004, President Bush announced a program of sweeping changes to the numbers
and
locations of military basing facilities at overseas locations, now known as the Integrated Global
Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) or Global Posture Review. Roughly 70,000 personnel would
return from overseas locations from Europe and Asia to bases in the continental United States
(CONUS). Other overseas forces would be redistributed within current host nations such as
Germany and South Korea, while new bases would be established in nations of Eastern Europe,
Central Asia, and Africa. In the Department of Defense's (DOD) view, these locations would be
better able to respond to potential trouble spots. The second session of the 109th Congress could
have to consider approval of the DOD proposal, or review appropriations requests for construction
of infrastructure, increased impact aid to local communities, and new acquisition programs for
mobility and logistics capabilities (such as airlift). Finally, the Senate may have to consider
ratification of new or revised treaties.
In August 2005, the congressionally mandated Commission on the Review of Overseas Military
Facility Structure of the United States (also known as the "Overseas Basing Commission") formally
reported its findings. It disagreed with the "timing and synchronization" of the DOD overseas
re-basing initiative. It also saw the initiative as potentially at odds with stresses on the force from
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly hampering recruiting and retention. The
Commission questioned whether sufficient interagency coordination had occurred. It expressed
doubts that the military had enough airlift and sealift to make the strategy work, and noted that DOD
had likely underestimated the cost of all aspects associated with the moves (DOD budgeted $4
billion, the Commission estimated $20 billion). DOD disagreed with much of the Commission's
analysis. Meanwhile, some have voiced concern that the DOD plan would harm long-standing
alliance relationships, while others questioned DOD's plans to accommodate the thousands of troops
returning to the U.S. Critics also argued that the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
round, which entered into force on November 9, 2005, and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),
which is to be completed in early 2006, should have been finalized before completing the overseas
basing plan.
Congress acted on some of its concerns with the re-basing plan in the FY2006 Defense
Authorization Act, tasking DOD with follow-on studies of overseas basing criteria and mobility
requirements. It also directs DOD to further examine the state and local impacts on installations
gaining personnel from the re-basing implementation.
Recent international diplomatic and security developments could further influence debate on
overseas basing. Uzbekistan, one of the test cases for the new strategy, recently evicted U.S. forces
from the base in that Central Asian nation. Some analysts argue this eviction was prompted by
Russia and China, who have begun to express concern with U.S. expansion of influence in the
region. This report will be updated as necessary.
