The US has aquirred it's bases for different historic reasons. Some, in the pacific, were leased off the UK for money. Others, like the bases in Japan and Germany, were forced on countries that lost a war with the US, and as few who fought in or supported that war are still alive, you can see why those countries might consider whether they benefit from them.
It is hard to separate beneficial activities that the US does, like the protection of shipping as it travels past East Africa, from it's pursuit of strategic objectives, such as rivalry for dominance in Africa with the Chinese, and middle eastern power blocks. And in addition, there is a legitimate counter terrorism aspect, which probably benefits the US more than other countries.
The thing is that the US had a great deal of control over Western Europe, imposed by force in the 1940s, and declining since then, and this was achieved as part of a struggle between the US and USSR, where European countries were really pawns. As the power declines (in part due to increasing strength and unity between EU countries), it's hard to imagine that the US will be able to maintain it's bases.
I think you should try to see it more dispassionately. There is a strategic game, where people lose and win, often in different ways at the same time. As American power declines from it's peak this century, it may be more comfortable to view it as a neccesary horror, rather than America's god appointed role, as a lot of Europeans view their own countries real politique.
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/26/u-s-military-bases-in-eu...