Link: https://worldbeyondwar.org/bases-without-names-how-governments-rebrand-the-u-s-military-presence/

From “Forces of allied and friendly nations” in Jordan to “agreed locations” in the Philippines and a “rotational presence” in Australia, governments use legal and diplomatic language that avoids describing facilities hosting U.S. forces as military bases. Yet changing the terminology does not change these sites’ military function.

When Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi rejected claims that his country hosted U.S. military bases, he did not deny the presence of American troops. Instead, he said they were stationed at Jordanian military bases under a defense cooperation agreement for Military training and described the presence of U.S. bases as forces “of allied and friendly nations with whom we cooperate on defense and training.”

The distinction was carefully constructed. The forces were American, but the bases were Jordanian. The foreign military presence was acknowledged, while the politically sensitive label, “U.S. military base”, was rejected.

Jordan is not an exception. Across Asia, Europe and the Middle East, governments use an expanding vocabulary to describe sites that accommodate U.S. troops, aircraft, weapons, equipment and logistical systems. They speak of “agreed locations”, “joint-use facilities”, “rotational deployments”, “defense cooperation”, “host-nation support” and, most revealingly, “places, not bases”.

These terms do not necessarily describe imaginary legal distinctions. The land may remain under the sovereignty of the host state, and the United States may neither own nor formally lease it. Yet focusing exclusively on ownership obscures a more important question: What military functions does the site perform?

This article adopts a functional definition of a foreign military base rather than relying on the designation preferred by the host or operating government...