Thursday, February 09, 2012

Limits of Engagement

I've noted that the Philippines is discussing options for expanding our military's presence in their country. I hoped it might include reopening our old Subic Bay and Clark facilities. But I assumed it would not since our latest emphasis has been on access to facilities in a crisis rather than an ongoing presence. That seems to be the way things are going. And it has to be that way since I didn't realize (or forgot) that we can't have bases in the Philippines:

U.S. ships and aircraft are seeking access for re-supply, re-fueling and repairs, not just for goodwill visits, exercises and training activities, the diplomat said.

The Philippines was ruled by the United States for nearly five decades between the departure of the Spanish and the Japanese occupation during the Second World War, and is now one of its foremost allies in Asia, despite expelling the U.S. from its former military bases at Clark and Subic Bay in 1992.

Since 1987, the Philippine constitution has explicitly banned a permanent foreign military presence. But Washington maintains close military ties under a 1951 defense treaty, and its special forces have been helping the Philippine military combat Islamic militants in the south of the country since 2002.

That's fine, I guess. As long as we are keeping bases warm and visit them frequently, we won't have as many glitches as we would in going into a base for the first time and figuring out where the latrines are while under fire.

Of course, we can't defend the bases if they are attacked to put them out of action in the opening hours of a fight.

But warm bases are better than cold bases--and obviously better than nothing. And with a pivot to the Pacific, we need some sort of arrangement with the Philippines.