Just the Facts. wrote:
US forces do not protect the EU or most countries in which they are deployed.
They use those countries for forward bases (or to breed US national soccer players). The same goes with Japan, Australia, and Thailand.
To say the EU needs protection, which has combined military forces of 1.5 million personnel and hundreds of nuclear warheads, is patently ridiculous.
The same goes for the likes of Singapore, Greenland, South Africa.
Yes, they're forward bases. It's hard to defend your allies from attack if you're not there. Look up the cold war, that was the main purpose of the bases being there. It's not so much today, and yes, they've managed to get together 1.5mil troops, but about 1/3 is actual combat troops, a good portion of the military hardware is US made (planes, vehicles). Let's not forget the F-35 which has participation by EU members to recieve this jet as well.
Japan, post WW2, we signed an agreement for mutual security. It says specifically in there we defend Japan. Their post ww2 constitution strictly mentions not having anything past a defensive military.
Greenland's base is there for Defense as well setup through NATO. Look it up.
Singapore, it's more of an agreement. We sell them weapons systems & military logistics while also training their people here in the US.
Africa, more-so in the horn of Africa on the east coast. Our African involvement is minimal. Place is a mess.
Most of the bases we have are there for defensive reasons and have old agreements from post WW2. Some logistical like Singapore, some defensive like Japan's, some inbetween.