U.S. tab for bases in 3 nations on rise, report finds
WASHINGTON — The United States is footing more of the bill for overseas bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea even as the military reduces the number of American troops in Europe and strategically repositions forces in Asia, a congressional report says.
The exhaustive, yearlong investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee focused on costs and burden-sharing as the United States spends more than $10 billion a year to back up the U.S. military presence overseas, with 70 percent of the amount expended in the three nations. The figure does not include military personnel costs.
The panel's report released on Wednesday found the financial contributions by those host countries lagging behind costs or increases in U.S. spending. The report identified inherent problems and missteps in the compensation system as the United States returns a growing number of its upgraded facilities on foreign land to the host countries.
The report insisted that the American presence in the countries is vital, especially with bellicose threats from a nuclear North Korea, China's military growth and Germany's partnership with the United States in NATO. However, the Pentagon is facing the pressure of deficit-driven, smaller budgets while looking to scale back or close bases.
The cost arrangements with allies have drawn greater congressional scrutiny — and frustration.
“The growth in our share has really been pretty stunning. And I think we've got to stop that direction,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the committee.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.S. lowers fluoride in water; too much causing splotchy teeth
- Presley’s planes will remain at Graceland
- McCain renews push to have military, not CIA, manage drone strikes
- Federal highway fund shortage batters states
- Mourners attend Baltimore man’s wake
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- Corinthian Colleges to shut down more than two dozen remaining schools
- Severe storm with tornado roars into north Texas
- Study a surprise: Commercial bees unfazed by pesticides
- Supreme Court leans toward legalizing gay marriage nationally
- Oregon mulls law limiting antibiotic use on livestock