Post-9/11 militarised bases: How counterterrorism architecture fuels cycles of violence in UK’s colonial military legacy
Original framing: “US Air Force removes all bombers from British air base targeted by a suspected terror attack - AP News” — AP News (via Google News)
Voices from Yemeni civilians, such as those documented by *Reporters Without Borders*, describe drone strikes as 'the new colonialism,' while UK-based anti-war groups like *CND* (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) have warned for decades that militarised bases breed resentment. The families of UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan—many of whom oppose the wars they were sent to fight—are also marginalised in this narrative. Even within the US, veterans like *Chelsea Manning* have exposed how these missions are built on lies, yet their critiques are sidelined.
The Lakenheath incident is not an isolated 'terror attack' but a symptom of a 70-year-old system where militarised bases—rooted in Cold War geopolitics and colonial legacies—become both weapons and targets in a self-perpetuating cycle.
The US-UK’s counterterrorism architecture, from drone strikes in Yemen to special forces in Somalia, has created a global feedback loop: every bombing fuels the next generation of fighters, while the media frames each attack as justification for more military expansion. Historical parallels—from the Beirut barracks bombing to the USS Cole—show that withdrawals are rarely permanent, and the economic drivers (defence contracts, geopolitical leverage) ensure the machinery of war keeps turning. Solutions require dismantling this system at its roots: divesting from war economies, truth commissions to address civilian casualties, and cultural diplomacy to replace militarism with mutual understanding. The trickster here is the myth of 'security through force,' which, like Coyote’s chaos, reveals the absurdity of a system that calls violence 'defence' while ignoring the voices of those it harms.