Empire’s Footprint: If Not Defense, Then What? Rethinking America’s Global Military Presence

From the Maldives, the question of global military power is not abstract—it is geographic. Just beyond these island chains lies , one of the United States’ most strategically important military installations in the Indian Ocean. Remote and highly strategic, it enables operations across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

Seen from here, the scale of the U.S. military’s global presence becomes harder to ignore—and harder to explain in simple terms. The United States maintains a staggering 750 military bases across about 80 countries, an unmatched global footprint. This has long been justified through defense and economic stability: deterring adversaries, protecting trade routes, and reassuring allies. But at this scale, those explanations feel incomplete.

If not just defense and economics—then what?

The US argues that this planetary footprint is  anchored in economic and defence strategy, but there must be more to it than that. The U.S. based military network is concentrated along maritime choke points, contested regions, and trade arteries. Diego Garcia, for example, sits near vital Indian Ocean shipping lanes linking the Middle East and Asia.

From a Maldivian perspective, this highlights a key reality: such bases are less about local defense and more about regional reach—platforms for projecting power across vast distances. Globally, similar patterns emerge, suggesting a system built as much on positioning as protection.

Beyond Defense: The Architecture of Influence:

This network of US military bases also functions as a system of political influence. Military presence shapes alliances, embeds the U.S. in host nations’ security decisions, and creates forms of dependence. For smaller states such as the UAE, Bahrain, etc, the proximity to such power can bring benefits, but it can also bring constraints—such as limiting autonomy or pulling countries into wider geopolitical tensions.

Permanent Readiness, Normalized:

With infrastructure always in place, intervention in world and regional affairs becomes easier—logistically and politically, for the US. The result is a state of continuous readiness, where force is not exceptional but ever-available. From Diego Garcia to Europe and Asia, this network sustains a world where rapid military action is always within reach.

Strategic Preemption and Global Access:

These bases ensure the U.S. is never far from any major theater. This is not just about responding to threats, but shaping outcomes early. In this sense, the network operates less like a shield and more like a grid—ensuring access and influence. Diego Garcia’s value lies precisely in this: not defending territory, but controlling territory.

Domestic and Institutional Momentum:

These bases persist not only for strategic reasons but because entire systems—budgets, industries, and political interests—are built around them. Once established, this network sustains itself.

Underlying it all is a belief that global stability requires constant American presence. Bases become symbols of that role—whether seen as leadership or dominance.

There's growing calls for many such US bases to close. Those who argue for the closure of many such US bases say that these bases are a powerful provocation. But a more important question is why these bases exist in such numbers and permanence. Which of these bases are truly defensive, and which enable power projection? What costs do they impose on local communities? And how much say do host nations really have?

A View from the Periphery:

From the Maldives, near Diego Garcia, the global map looks different. Security is not just about distant threats, but about proximity to power—and the realities that come with it.

The U.S. military network serves many purposes at once: defense, economic security, influence, positioning, and an enduring commitment to global leadership. Recognizing this complexity does not settle the debate—but it clarifies it. Because the real question is not whether these bases should exist. The real question is whether we are fully honest about what they are for—and whether that purpose still fits the world today. 

Within the context of the current war in the Middle East, and the influence of the Zionist Libby in US politics, it is important to note the European countries and the Middle Eastern and even South American and Far Eastern countries where most of the US military bases are situated, have lost faith in the US politics and now most do not trust that having the US bases in their countries helps their defence. In a new world order it is very likely that the staggering number of more than 750 military bases that the US now has in over 80 countries will likely shrink in numbers in the coming years as the world becomes a multipolar place rather than a unipolar world dominated by the United States. 

Looking from the perspective of the Maldives, it would still serve us well, to keep close ties with the United States militarily if we want to secure the sovereignty of Chagos to the Maldives.