To deter aggression and prevail in armed conflict, the United States relies on partners to both deploy force and facilitate U.S. power projection through access to territory and basing, overflight rights, local logistics, and sustainment support. In addition to these operational imperatives, the U.S. is increasingly looking to partners to contribute to defense industrial readiness and resilience through defense sales, co-production, co-sustainment, and supply chain coordination. Yet there remains a critical gap in understanding how various security cooperation activities in periods before conflict lead to meaningful burden sharing, including operational support to U.S. forces and defense-industrial production surges, during times of intensified competition and armed conflict.
- Sayers, Michael, "Balancing Basing: How the US Decides to Close Overseas Military Bases," SAASS thesis, 2025, 98 pgs.
- Sayers answers how the U.S. maintains and sometimes loses its critical access to territory and basing by explaining that overseas military bases depend heavily on the alignment of U.S. geopolitical strategies and host nation (HN) domestic politics. Through his neoclassical realist framework blending defensive realism and shelter theory, he demonstrates that while the U.S. uses its bases to balance against global threats, smaller host nations use these bases to acquire economic, political, and societal "shelter". Sayers points out that meaningful burden sharing and basing access can collapse when an external strategic threat dissipates, as host nations like the Philippines (Clark AB) and Panama (Howard AB) experienced nationalist surges and asserted their sovereignty against the U.S. military presence. He concludes that the U.S. ultimately decides to close these overseas bases in response to a shifting global threat environment, but typically only after the host nation actively expresses interest in or acquiesces to a U.S. exit, proving that access to territory requires a continuous alignment of shared security interests.
- Spinella, Thomas W., "A Tale of Two Airbases: A Comparative Analysis of U.S. Government Airbase Divestment and Retainment Decisions," SAASS thesis, 2025, 87 pgs.
- To deter aggression and prevail in armed conflict, the United States relies on partners to both deploy force and facilitate U.S. power projection through access to territory and basing... Yet there remains a critical gap in understanding how various security cooperation activities in periods before conflict lead to meaningful burden sharing. Spinella addresses how the United States maintains access to territory and basing by showing that sustaining U.S. power projection relies on carefully managing patron-client relationships and understanding host-nation political constraints. He argues that U.S. policymakers have historically miscalculated by overestimating their bargaining leverage and underestimating the domestic political opposition within host nations, directly leading to the loss of critical installations like PSAB and Clark Air Base. To secure long-term access to territory and basing for power projection, Spinella recommends that the U.S. prioritize continuous political risk assessments, foster flexible agreements, and diversify regional basing alternatives. This proactive approach ensures the U.S. remains resilient against sudden shifts in host-nation sentiment and avoids relying on politically fragile basing agreements.