*Originally published in 2025. Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has maintained an unparalleled global military posture, embodying what some analysts have called an “empire of bases” (Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire, 2004). With nearly 750 military facilities across more than 80 countries (IISS, 2024), the U.S. continues to project power on a scale unmatched in history. This presence, supported by a defense budget exceeding $860 billion in 2023 – more than the next ten countries combined – demonstrates that military power remains the cornerstone of American global influence. Yet, this dominance is increasingly contested. The end of the “unipolar moment” (Krauthammer, 1990; Mearsheimer, 2018) has seen the rise of peer competitors such as China and Russia, as well as the proliferation of asymmetric threats. Moreover, the American military’s centrality in shaping international order raises a paradox: while intended to ensure peace and stability, the very omnipresence of U.S. forces often generates insecurity, dependence, and strategic backlash.

This article examines the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, analyzing how the United States uses its armed forces as a tool of global governance, and the implications of this reliance on military power for international peace. It explores five interrelated dimensions: (1) The ideological and strategic roots of American militarism; (2) The global network of bases and the geography of U.S. power; (3) The centrality of military instruments in American foreign policy; (4) The tensions between U.S. militarization and world order; (5) The new frontiers of militarization—cyber, space, and multi-domain operations. In doing so, the article highlights the contradiction at the heart of contemporary American strategy: the belief that global peace can be achieved through military supremacy, even though such supremacy increasingly fosters instability.

1) The Strategic and Ideological Roots of American Militarism

To fully grasp the structural nature of American militarism, it is necessary to trace its ideological and strategic foundations across different historical and political contexts. This trajectory begins with the cultural and doctrinal roots that made military power a central pillar of U.S. identity, before moving through the illusion of unipolar dominance in the post–Cold War era, the quagmire of the “forever wars,” and finally the persistence of militarism in the contemporary strategic posture under the Biden administration. Each of these dimensions illustrates not only the continuity of military primacy in U.S. foreign policy, but also the recurring paradoxes and contradictions that have shaped its global projection of power.

American militarism is not simply the result of post-9/11 counterterrorism or great power rivalry. It is deeply embedded in the country’s history and strategic culture. From the doctrine of Manifest Destiny in the 19th century to the Cold War containment strategy, the United States has consistently relied on military force as a central instrument of its rise. As Bacevich (2005) argues, the U.S. has developed a form of “military absolutism,” where force is not merely an option but often the preferred tool of policy. The tendency to resort to arms has been reinforced by the cultural glorification of the military in American political discourse, the influence of the military-industrial complex (Eisenhower, 1961), and the bipartisan consensus that U.S. leadership requires military dominance.

The collapse of the Soviet Union fostered the belief that American power could be perpetuated indefinitely through its military advantage. Charles Krauthammer’s notion of the “unipolar moment” (1990) reflected a conviction that the U.S. had achieved a hegemonic status that would remain unchallenged. This confidence translated into an interventionist strategy: military actions in the Balkans (Bosnia, Kosovo), the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan), and North Africa (Libya) reinforced the perception that the U.S. was the “indispensable nation” (Albright, 1998). However, these interventions often produced destabilization rather than peace, fueling criticisms of an over-militarized foreign policy (Miller, 2019).

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq epitomized this paradox. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the U.S. was unable to achieve decisive political outcomes. The Afghan conflict, the longest in American history, ended in 2021 with a chaotic withdrawal that symbolized the limits of militarism. Similarly, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified in the name of disarmament and democratization, generated chaos, sectarian conflict, and the rise of ISIS (Byman, 2011). These “forever wars” revealed the structural limits of military power: it can topple regimes but not easily rebuild states or reconcile societies. As Stephen Walt (2018) has underlined, American strategy has often confused the capacity to destroy with the capacity to create order.

Even after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, militarism remains a defining feature of U.S. policy. President Biden’s 2022 National Security Strategy emphasizes the need to “out-compete China and contain Russia,” with the Pentagon at the core of this competition. While diplomacy is rhetorically highlighted, the reality is that U.S. strategy continues to prioritize forward deployment, modernization of nuclear forces, and the expansion of alliances (NATO, AUKUS, Quad). Thus, far from marking a rupture, the Biden administration illustrates the continuity of militarism as a structural element of American power. As Posen (2014) argues, Washington remains trapped in a grand strategy of “liberal hegemony,” in which military force is viewed as the ultimate guarantor of order, despite its destabilizing consequences.

The historical trajectory of American militarism reveals a pattern of continuity that transcends administrations and geopolitical shifts. From the ideological underpinnings of Manifest Destiny to the “forever wars” of the 21st century, the reliance on military force has remained a structural feature of U.S. power. Yet, if Part I has shown the roots and persistence of this militarized tradition, the contemporary era adds new layers of complexity. The global network of U.S. bases, the entrenchment of the military-industrial complex, and the framing of great power rivalry with China and Russia have institutionalized militarism in unprecedented ways. It is to these dynamics of global militarization and the expanding reach of U.S. military presence that the next section now turns.

2) The Global Network of U.S. Bases and the Geography of Power

If American militarism is rooted in history and ideology, its most tangible manifestation lies in the global geography of U.S. power. Unlike traditional empires, Washington’s reach does not rely on territorial conquest but on an unparalleled network of overseas military bases. This “empire of bases” provides the United States with the ability to project force, sustain operations, and influence political outcomes across every region of the globe. To understand the centrality of this system, it is essential to examine its scope, strategic logic, dual functions of reassurance and coercion, the controversies it generates, and its potential reconfiguration in an era of shifting warfare and geopolitics.

One of the most distinctive features of American military power is its global network of installations. Chalmers Johnson (2004) famously described it as an “empire of bases”—a unique infrastructure that allows the United States to project power instantaneously across the globe. Unlike previous empires, whose control relied on colonies or territorial possessions, the U.S. exercises influence through a dense web of military facilities embedded in allied or dependent states. The U.S. maintains approximately 750 military bases in over 80 countries, ranging from small logistics hubs to massive installations like Ramstein in Germany, Camp Humphreys in South........

© E-International