Lily Pads DA

A copious amount of U.S. troops are strategically positioned in Okinawa to prevent foreign
threats.

Rinehart et al 16
Avery, Emma Chanlett, and Ian E. Rinehart. The U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa and the Futenma Base Controversy. Congressional Research Service, 2016.
Print.

Although the U.S.-Japan alliance is often labeled as “the cornerstone” of security in the
Asia Pacific region, local concerns about the U.S. military presence on the Japanese island of Okinawa have challenged the management of the
alliance for decades. The Japanese archipelago serves as the most significant forward-

operating platform for the U.S. military in the region; approximately 53,000
military personnel (39,000 onshore and 14,000 afloat in nearby waters), 43,000 dependents, and 5,000 Department of Defense civilian employees
live in Japan. With the United States rebalancing its defense posture towards Asia, the uncertainty surrounding the medium and long-term presence of
American forces on Okinawa remains a critical concern for national security decision-

makers. Due to the legacy of the U.S. occupation and the island’s key strategic
location, Okinawa hosts a disproportionate share of the continuing U.S. military
presence. About 25% of all facilities used by U.S. Forces Japan and about half of the U.S. military personnel are
located in the prefecture, which comprises less than 1% of Japan’s total land area. Many Okinawans oppose the U.S. military presence,
although some observers assert that Tokyo has failed to communicate effectively to Okinawans the benefits of the alliance. However, Okinawa has received billions
of dollars in subsidies from the central government to offset the “burden” of hosting U.S. troops.

Considering the expansive number of troops in Okinawa, it is important to note that the effects of
U.S. withdrawal are counter-intuitive, because the removed military would have to go somewhere
else. The alternative to having troops in Okinawa is an increase in the number of so-called “lily
pads”.

Vine 15
Vine 2015 (David, Professor of Anthropology at American University, Washington D.C., Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the
World. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York. pp. 299-301) [nagel]

Since at least the [U.S.] decolonization era of the 1950s, U.S. officials have feared the kind of protest increasingly seen in places such as
Vicenza, Vieques, and Okinawa . Planners covet safe, worry-free bases insulated from opposition, military constraints, and the risk of eviction. They want
bases free of the kinds of restrictions the military faced during the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1970s, when several European allies prevented the use of their bases and
airspace to support Israel, and again in the lead-up to the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Turkey-and other European countries limited the use of U.S. bases
on their soil. A Pentagon official explained in a 2009 presentation that the new aim is to "lighten U.S. foreign footprints to reduce friction with host nations" and
avoid offending "host nation and regional sensitivities."' Avoidance of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the goal. And to achieve it, the

[would lead to] increasingly turning to [more] small, covert sites scattered around
Pentagon is

the globe – the "cooperative security locations" frequently referred to simply as "lily pads." Some of the attractiveness of
the lily pad strategy, with its relative shift from large bases to smaller ones, has clearly been the lower costs involved, especially in the face of Pentagon budget cuts.
Most lily pads are located in economically and politically weak countries that are more easily influenced by the economic benefits and political payoffs promised by
bases, and where labor and other operating costs are lower than in more powerful countries such as Germany, Italy, and Japan. Poorer countries' less stringent

environmental regulations also make operations cheaper and easier. Thanks to lily pads' low costs, many military planners also like the idea of [The U.S.
has already been] building new bases in as many nations as possible what the Pentagon calls
"redundant capabilities and access."2 With a big collection of small bases joining a smaller number of main operating bases like Ramstein and Camp Humphreys in
South Korea, planners hope "to respond rapidly to crises and contingencies anywhere in the world" by turning from one country to another if a host denies use of a
U.S. base in wartime (as Turkey and other European countries did to varying degrees in the lead-up to the second invasion of Iraq in 2003).3 Maintaining larger
numbers of bases also increases the challenge for any potential adversary who wants to target American bases in wartime. And the relatively low costs of lily pads
mean that if a host country ever evicts one, the financial damage is far smaller than the losses at bases like Clark and Subic Bay. Lily pads have also grown in
popularity as some military planners, on both the right and left of the political spectrum, have challenged one of the tradit ional rationales for maintaining large
numbers of bases overseas: deployment speed. According to a Bush administration study, for example, because of technological advancements in airlift and sealift,
deploying troops to a conflict from most overseas bases saves little if any time compared to deploying from domestic bases.4 More and more military analysts are
thus concluding that maintaining stores of weapons and supplies overseas-what the military calls "pre-positioning" -is more important than having tens of thousands
of troops there, with the attendant costs to support them and their families. Most lily pads can serve this pre-positioning function while also offering, like somewhat
bigger forward operating sites, "surge capacity" to expand easily and rapidly in order to accommodate much larger numbers of troops and weaponry in a crisis. A
2005 exercise, for example, showed how hundreds of U.S. troops from Illinois could deploy to a lily pad in Bulgaria run by KBR and local contractors.5 More
broadly, the lily pad strategy is a critical part of what many are calling a "new way of war" for the United States, aimed at maintaining U.S. global dominance amid
growing economic and geopolitical competition from China, the European Union, and rising powers such as Russia and India. The days of hundreds of bases and
hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan may be over, but the development of lily pad bases in places such as Honduras, the

Philippines, and Niger is a warning that whether we realize it or not- the military is increasingly
 inserting itself into new areas of the world and into new conflicts, with potentially
disastrous consequences.
This creates base races and encourages military force, which is far more detrimental than leaving
these troops in Okinawa in the status quo.

Vine further explains:

Vine 2015 (David, Professor of Anthropology at American University, Washington D.C., Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the
World. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York. pp. 318-319) [nagel]

This is especially dangerous because the strategy of building small bases in as many nations as possible also guarantees collaboration with a significant number of
despotic, corrupt, and murderous regimes. As we have seen, bases small and large have tended to provide legitimacy for and [to] help prop up undemocratic regimes
while interfering with efforts to encourage political and democratic reform. (Opponents may also use the bases to rally nationalist sentiment and violent opposition

As the U.S. military cooperates with local militaries to create

against ruling regimes and the United States.)

lily pads, it becomes increasingly likely that Americans will become involved in local
conflicts and political struggles about which U.S. leaders know little and whose victims are often innocent civilians. In Africa and other poorer parts of the
globe, where struggles over resources have often led to corruption, repression, and violence, strengthening local militaries can also encourage ruling regimes to use

them against opponents. It likewise can encourage opponents to see military force as the only
way to claim a share of a country's wealth and political power, increasing the
possibility of coups and instability.63 Notably, the 2012 coup in Mali was carried out by a soldier who had received extensive U.S.
training. Although lily pads seem to promise insulation from local opposition, over time even small bases have harmed

local communities and have often led to anger and protest movements. Crashes at drone bases in
Djibouti and the Seychelles have already caused local apprehension and opposition. Military personnel operating from a lily pad in Colombia have committed rape.
In Ecuador, U.S. Coast Guard counter-narcotics operations sank several fishing vessels and may have been responsible for the deaths of fishers aboard at least one
boat. And in Australia's Cocos Islands, where U.S. officials have considered a lily pad, some locals fear they might suffer the same fate that befell the Chagossians
exiled from Diego Garcia.64 Finally, a proliferation of lily pads only accelerates the militarization of large swaths of the globe. Like real lily pads, which are

Bases can beget bases and spur "base races" with

actually aquatic weeds, bases have a way of reproducing uncontrollably.65

other nations, heightening military tensions and discouraging diplomatic solutions

to conflicts.66 In Africa, where China has provided some military aid and weaponry, U.S.
lily pads may encourage China to build lily pads of its own. This could increase
regional tensions and the danger of a clash between the two powers or their proxies.67 If the proliferation of lily pads
continues, the United States runs an increasing risk of being drawn into new conflicts and
new wars. Lily pads near the borders of China and Russia are especially dangerous. If China, Russia, or Iran were to build even a single lily pad near U.S.
borders, many would surely call for a military response. If lily pads keep multiplying as part of this dangerous new American way of war, the country risks
generating unknown and deadly forms of blowback for years to come.