	Introduction and Issues for Congress

On August 16, 2004, President Bush unveiled one of the most sweeping changes to the numbersand locations of military overseas basing facilities since the beginning of the Cold War. In 2004, the Congress chartered theCommission on the Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States (also known asthe Overseas Basing Commission) to provide an independent assessment of the DOD overseas basingneeds. (1) 
The DOD plan could prompt budget and oversight decisions for the second session of the109th Congress. Congress could also have to consider appropriations requests for construction of infrastructure atnew overseas or expanded continental United States (CONUS) locations, as well as fund increasedimpact aid to local communities. Congress would have to oversee new acquisition programs formobility and logistics capabilities (such as airlift) needed for the strategy. Finally, the Senate may consider new or revised treatieswith new basing partners submitted for its advice and consent. Background

		The Department of Defense Strategy

The Department of Defense Global Posture Review, also known as the Integrated GlobalPresence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), is intended to realign United States overseas forces over asix-to-eight-year period from the bases (basing "posture") left over from the Cold War (2) to a new posture optimizedto support current allies and confront new potential threats. Overall, the focus of military basing would shift south and east, closer to currentMiddle-Eastern hot-spots and Central Asia. (12) Officials view Africa asan increasingly important region in the war on terror. While theCommission concurred with the need to reshape the structure of U.S. overseas basing, in general,the report was critical of the DOD's overseas restructuring process and proposal. However, the report'smajor finding held that "the timing and synchronization of the global re-basing initiatives must berethought." The Commission expressed concern that the strain of conducting this sweeping seriesof moves, while also conducting major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has the potential to threatenthe capability of the force. (22) 
The report highlighted claims that the re-basing plan would harm the quality of life ofvolunteer military personnel. Some critics, such as Philip H. Gordon at the Brookings Institution, fearthat moving forces away from long term allies to basing in nations less likely to restrain U.S. militaryoperations would give the Administration more latitude to take unilateral military action in futurecrises without consultation, thus further harming relationships and the U.S. image. The 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure findings entered into forceon November 9, 2005. (33) 
The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is under final review and scheduled to be sentto Congress on February 6, 2006. Thelegislation requires DOD to detail funding for these overseas locations in the annual budgetsubmission. The FY2006 Authorization legislation also requires the Secretary of Defenseto consult with state and local governments, as it develops its global posture implementation plans,regarding infrastructure and support needs driven by personnel returning from overseas basing. One reason for this eviction might have been StateDepartment pressure on the Tashkent government regarding recent human rights abuses. Thesemoves may have major impacts across many aspects of U.S. foreign and security policy. Others might also contend thatproposing a re-basing strategy before completing the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round andthe Mobility Capabilities Study could result in mismatches of supporting infrastructure or mobilityassets. The Overseas Basing Commission argued that the preliminary diplomatic legwork had notbeen fully accomplished. Early evidence may indicate thatDOD and the State Department need to further examine potential treaty impacts.
On August 16, 2004, President Bush announced a program of sweeping changes to thenumbers and locations of military basing facilities at overseas locations, now known as theIntegrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) or Global Posture Review. Roughly 70,000personnel would return from overseas locations from Europe and Asia to bases in the continentalUnited States (CONUS). Other overseas forces would be redistributed within current host nationssuch as Germany and South Korea, while new bases would be established in nations of EasternEurope, Central Asia, and Africa. In the Department of Defense's (DOD) view, these locationswould be better able to respond to potential trouble spots. The second session of the 109th Congresscould have to consider approval of the DOD proposal, or review appropriations requests forconstruction of infrastructure, increased impact aid to local communities, and new acquisitionprograms for mobility and logistics capabilities (such as airlift). Finally, the Senate may have toconsider ratification of new or revised treaties.
In August 2005, the congressionally mandated Commission on the Review of OverseasMilitary Facility Structure of the United States (also known as the "Overseas Basing Commission")formally reported its findings. It disagreed with the "timing and synchronization" of the DODoverseas re-basing initiative. It also saw the initiative as potentially at odds with stresses on the forcefrom operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly hampering recruiting and retention. TheCommission questioned whether sufficient interagency coordination had occurred. It expresseddoubts that the military had enough airlift and sealift to make the strategy work, and noted that DODhad likely underestimated the cost of all aspects associated with the moves (DOD budgeted $4billion, the Commission estimated $20 billion). DOD disagreed with much of the Commission'sanalysis. Meanwhile, some have voiced concern that the DOD plan would harm long-standingalliance relationships, while others questioned DOD's plans to accommodate the thousands of troopsreturning to the U.S. Critics also argued that the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)round, which entered into force on November 9, 2005, and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),which is to be completed in early 2006, should have been finalized before completing the overseasbasing plan.
Congress acted on some of its concerns with the re-basing plan in the FY2006 DefenseAuthorization Act, tasking DOD with follow-on studies of overseas basing criteria and mobilityrequirements. It also directs DOD to further examine the state and local impacts on installationsgaining personnel from the re-basing implementation.
Recent international diplomatic and security developments could further influence debate onoverseas basing. Uzbekistan, one of the test cases for the new strategy, recently evicted U.S. forcesfrom the base in that Central Asian nation. Some analysts argue this eviction was prompted byRussia and China, who have begun to express concern with U.S. expansion of influence in theregion. This report will be updated as necessary.