Throughout history, states aspiring to establish dominance have strategically established foreign military bases in regions where they aim to establish hegemony through indirect control or in geographically proximate areas. Foreign military bases, in this context, serve as primary tools for advancing political interests and asserting political power.

These bases hold immense strategic value, primarily serving as facilities for armed forces to conduct battle, defense, and training operations. From a traditional geopolitical perspective, it is widely acknowledged that the path to achieving genuine global political power, capable of exerting meaningful worldwide strategic influence and protecting its interests abroad always begins with building military bases abroad (Guifang and Jie, 2019, p. 503).

There are three primary strategic reasons for the establishment of foreign military bases. Despite the evolving content of these reasons in response to shifting global dynamics and power balances, these fundamental drivers have consistently persisted:

Strategic Interest: Generally, when there is a need to counter a specific threat, the proximity of a base to the source of the threat is crucial for ensuring security. For major powers, this proximity can be a decisive factor in establishing a foreign base. These bases can be located in the territory of friendly states or even in the territory of adversaries. Their roles encompass deterring threats, engaging in conflicts and wars, gathering intelligence, conducting military exercises, ensuring the security of transition, and directing states to establish bases abroad on their own. In such situations, a state that maintains a base abroad is inclined to employ force, especially in the early years, to secure and protect this base.

Joint Strategic Interest: Establishing a foreign military base is often considered a special method for the two states to cooperate and unite against a common threat. It provides host countries with the opportunity to harness the military presence of major powers to support the defense of their territories. On the other hand, the warning of shared strategic interests can undermine the rationale for base construction.

Technological Advancements: Technological progress constitutes the impetus for the establishment of foreign military bases. Historically, the need for coal stations for naval vessels has driven the creation of bases in foreign countries. Similarly, advancement in aviation technology has required the presence of airports in various regions across the world (Converse, 1984). Moreover, progress in intelligence technologies has also required the establishment of bases worldwide. Some bases have been equipped with intelligence facilities to monitor regional communications. Notably, technologies such as nuclear capabilities, especially for their control and limitation, have emerged as pivotal reasons for establishing a foreign military base. Emerging technologies may also be a reason for establishing such bases.

Today, the traditional roles of foreign military bases (defense of an ally or allies, functions of deterrence and counterbalancing, homeland defense, and intelligence gathering) still hold relevance but have diminished in priority compared to the past. However, counter-terrorism and reconnaissance missions have gained increased significance (Lachowski, 2007, p. 3).

According to Glaser (2017, p. 5), three important reasons underscore the contemporary necessity of military bases. (1) deter potential offensives, (2) reassure friends and allies, and (3) provide a swift military response to any operational contingency. This underlines the significance of forces at these bases for counter-terrorism and reconnaissance missions and underscores the assumption that foreign military bases are essential for rapid deployment in military interventions.

Common strategic interests often play a pivotal role in the establishment of foreign military bases on the territory of countries with which they maintain formal alliance ties. Although allied states may not always fulfill their security commitments, ordinarily with national strategic interests at the forefront, having formal ties based on a military base agreement signifies the commitment of the parties to uphold the agreement. Notable examples, such as Japan, Germany, and South Korea, hosting US military bases as a part of security agreements with the US, exemplify this situation (Ohtomo, 2012, p.18).

The main reason for host countries to allow foreign military bases on their sovereign territory is the prospect of gaining economic and security advantages in return. As such, the decision of host countries on whether to allow foreign bases revolves around the balancing between economic and security benefits and political costs. It is an intuitive choice for a host country to permit foreign military bases, primarily for financial reasons (Brown, 2020, p. 13, 16). Foreign military bases, which are a powerful means for the security needs of the host country, also provide the creation of capital and a large market for goods and services in the host nation. 

Foreign military bases offer host countries to influence the resolution of local or regional conflicts. Simultaneously, they allow the base-owner country to address security needs and establish a network within the region. From a positive perspective, these bases serve as a valuable asset, providing both defense capabilities and resources where they are established. For example, as noted by Ryen Henry (2006, p. 48), the extensive network of US military bases abroad “reflects the American commitment to a global insurance policy for an evolving security environment”.

However, this argument of support and altruism is inconsistent with the predominant nature of US strategic thinking regarding overseas bases, which often focuses on planning and equipping bases for attack rather than local conflict resolution or defense. Notable instances include the use of US bases in the Philippines for military operations in Vietnam, and the use of US bases in Germany for logistical support for the war in Iraq. The benefits of hosting foreign military bases may be substantial for local economies and governments. Still, they also include a host of other economic costs, including pollution, noise, and disturbance of peace, which cannot be fully offset by local spending by military personnel or hiring local people. Furthermore, US bases used in this manner may inadvertently make countries allied with the US more vulnerable to attacks, rather than providing adequate protection for the host countries (Lutz, 2009, p. 27).

Some advocate an ideology that supports foreign military bases, arguing that the world is a dangerous place and naturally needs the control of the armies. They posit that foreign military bases are a normal and essential component of the global security framework, valued by the governments and the populations of the host countries (Johnson 2004). These bases are often presented as essential security means against objective risks. Stephen Van Evera (2001), however, suggests that foreign military bases can also be seen as symptoms or causes of irrational or limitless fears, bordering on paranoia, as they are constructed to regulate a world perceived as chaotic.

Foreign military bases stand as prominent symbols and underpin the attitudes and approaches of base-owner states toward foreign and defense policy. However, their primary political purpose is not to increase stability, but to use the military presence of the base state as a tool for political change (Campbell and Ward, 2003, p. 100). In this context, the presence of a foreign military base can introduce political instability to the region in question. Agreements such as the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA), negotiated with unpopular local governments, may lead local populations and other nations to view these foreign military presences as authoritarian (Peterson, 2012, p. 194). 

There is a perspective suggesting that foreign military bases may not only contribute to the authoritarianism of the host country’s administration but also create security vulnerabilities. Over time, a military infrastructure can pose a threat to the host country, disrupt regional security, and potentially become a target or vulnerable to foreign attack (Zeijden 2009). Particularly, military bases established in proximity to conflict zones and neighboring hostile countries can pose various to the host country. The inability to take precautionary measures against threats, influenced by the terms of agreements between the host and the base-owner states or merely their existence, can lead to discussions that extend to questions of sovereignty.