When I first read that we were planning to build l6 huge permanent military bases in Iraq I was flabbergasted. I thought, “This is a huge story. It will be all over Time and Newsweek soon.”
As you know, it has been “all over” nowhere.
I have remained intensely curious about those bases. It’s not easy finding facts, not even to determine how many bases there will be, or even if they are definitely being built.
I offer this diary merely as a start. Here is the little bit I have been able to find. Please add anything you know and correct anything you believe I have wrong.
How many? 16, 14, 13, 4? I have seen all those numbers, but have not been able to determine which is correct. During one of the debates, Sen. Kerry mentioned 14 bases. The Chicago Tribune said 14, but that was back in March of 2004.
Where? The plan may be to build them on the ruins of abandoned Iraqi army bases.
“John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group Global/Security.org has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard `military city’ that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Merez, next to Mosul Airport.”
Source: “Not-So Endearing Enduring Military Bases in Iraq, by Mark Drolette, Scoop Independent News, May 20, 2005.
scoop.co.nz.
It’s very confusing. That column with that info ran on May 20 of this year. But on May 23 of this year, there was an article in The Guardian that said we are building four air bases: in Tallil, Al Asad, Balad, and either Irbil or Qayyarah. (North, West, South, and Center.) It said we are going to pull our troops back from towns and cities and redeploy them in those bases “as a prelude to eventual withdrawal.” Some claim the bases will be handed over to Iraq control. Others see them as evidence that we aren’t going home. I just don’t know if these four are part of-or instead of-the larger number.
It would help if our media were interested in this huge “footprint” that is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, not to mention the effect it will have on Iraq.
Hello? Journalists?
How big? Depends on the number of bases. The biggest number I’ve found is l00,000 troops.
How long? They’re sometimes called “enduring” bases. How long is “enduring”? I found no real answer, just educated guesses that ranged upwards to “decades.”
Cost? Billions. I found a quote of $4.5 billion going to the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR.
Rationale for the project
To maintain a big, permanent military presence in that region, but to improve on the status quo by moving our military out of Saudi Arabia and into another, (supposedly) more secure and hospitable country.
Gee, fellows, how’s that working out for you?
An article in Mother Jones in 2003 quotes Karen Kwiatkowski, the retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who worked for DOD, as saying that the neocons want the bases to protect Israel and launch operations into Syria and Iran. “Eighty percent of Iraquis will grouse,” she is quoted as saying, “but they have no political power. We’ll stay whether they want us to, or not.”
Also Mother Jones: “According to one intelligence source in Baghdad, maintaining a quick reaction force in Iraq would be essential to prevent, for example, a coup against a friendly Iraqi government. And the Pentagon sees Iraq as possibly playing a role in its global realignment of U.S. forces-a shift away from the static, Cold War basing arrangements in Europe to smaller, more flexible deployments in volatile regions like the Middle East.”
When I googled this, I found a headline from the Freeper site, Free Republic:
“WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ: Military Bases Are a Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective.”
Sounds like the truth to me.
Opposition:
There is a group that offers the following Resolution to Oppose Permanent Hard Military Bases in Iraq:
WHEREAS, False evidence was used to generate fear of Iraqi WMD,legitimate efforts to locate and destroy WMDs were thwarted, legitimate efforts to locate and destroy WMDs were forced to end, traditional allies were alienated by our dominating and demeaning posture, we initiated an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, we declared “Mission Accomplished” in April 2003, we allowed theft, vandalism and looting of Iraqi property, and
we inhumanly treated detainees;
WHEREAS, we destroyed uncounted lives and property as a means of control; and
WHEREAS, our presence has exacerbated opposition and increased threats to our country, our continued presence places additional burden on our economic stability, our continued presence places additional burden on our armed forces, and;
WHEREAS, hard bases are an indicator to the world of our intention to subjugate the area for our own benefit, there are no remaining WMDs in the Iraq, our revised stated objective is to leave an Iraq free of control by Saddam Hussein has been met, and
our occupation serves an a potent recruitment tool for insurgencies, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that all efforts toward planning, building, equipping and manning permanent, hard military bases in Iraq be terminated, and be it
RESOLVED, that we make clear our total withdrawal of control of Iraq to the world.
History:
The genesis appears to be The (infamous) Project for the New American Century (PNAC)’s Sept. 20 report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.”
. . .the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (p. 14)
Me again: This isn’t much, and it’s shaky, but it’s more than I knew before I started looking. This story seems huge to me, it always has, and yet it has been almost totally ignored.
Did you run across the article about the bases being moved into three very large bases? I read that a couple months ago, or so.
P.S. I changed the link displays so the page doesn’t spread so widely.
That’s one I didn’t see, Susan. So there’s another possible number for the list: l6, 14, 13, 4, 3. It’s beginning to look like a lottery pick.
Thanks for fixing link displays.
It’s part of their pattern of tossing out a flurry of contradictory information. Iraq will be easy, we’ll get flowers and chocolate, not bullets. Iraq will be hard. It’s hard. We said it would be hard. I think we’ll measure our time in Iraq in months rather than years. I never said it would be easy, war takes sacrifice, it’s hard.
So of course they can build an infinite number of military bases while at the same time saying that we’ll go home as soon as they ask.
I happen to think that 4 is 4 too many, but a lot of folks will look on it as way better than 16. But I think it’s the enduring committment that’s bad.
You did a great job — I’m off to follow your links.
“Pattern” is right. Obfuscating pattern. It’s so hard to pin them down on the truth of ANYthing, which is amazing in this case because we’re talking about such big “anythings.” I really did used to think that reporters would find the news of these bases–however many there are–extraordinarily important in terms of figuring out what the White House is really up to. I was pretty much wrong about that.
Thanks, katieb. Let me know if the links don’t work.
Thanks for this diary and recommended! The clouds of smoke that billow out of this administration are exceedingly frustrating.
Must have been the Armed Services Committee, there was testimony about the “permanent” bases being constructed. This was shortly after the suicide bomber in the mess hall, handy timing for the DoD to say that the bases were not permanent, but security required the heavy duty, permanent kind of construction. Got that?
Bullshit. Of course even Dems like Hillary Clinton are in favor of permanent bases, so there you go. Asked and answered.
“Moving our military out of Saudi Arabia,” I can understand. If I understnad correctly, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and the cultural changes it’s caused, it the root of bin Laden’s anger.
I always figured those bases were to protect the oil, which I’ve always assumed is why we went. But after reading your post, it makes sense that we would use them to invade other countries as well.
Maybe both/and.
Interesting. Thanks.
Yes, the idea apparently was to transfer from atop one oil-rich country where our presence makes everybody uneasy to another oil-rich country where, supposedly, all those flower-wielding natives will make it easy for us to stay. Oops.
So now we end up in both countries, satisfying nobody and infuriating everybody.
Kansas it’s far far worse than even you have guessed.
Pax
. . . !
The link is to a map and list of about 100 camps and bases. Maybe those aren’t permanent/enduring?
With 150,000 troops in Iraq, nearly every unit, down to the company level is going to have a base of some kind. Several of the bases are logistics staging points (FSB forward support bases, FLB forward logistics bases). Others are just outposts for a given company or battalion (e.g. FOB Falcon in Baghdad).
There is construction going on for a more permanent presence. Likely these will be at bases where there is already a large concentration of activity – the Green Zone being the most obvious.
I’d guess we’ll end up with 4 to 6 major long term bases around the country.
I havent superimposed the fact sheet on the other, but at a glance it loos like that we are in position to hold it as it is and that the brits and pols are definately doing things with us. I did not notice a date that this global security piece came out. Is there a signifance in this?
Hi, Brenda. The GS guy was quoted this year and he was apparently referring to construction going on for the past year.
(In re-reading that, I noted that Drollete was quoting from the Mother Jones article. It’s really amazing how there seem to have been about three articles over all these years and there’s so little info they all have to quote each other.)
Hey Kansas, I think this is an intentional thing for the reporters not to have privy to. There happens to be so much secrecy here on many things out of the pentagon that it is enough to boggle the mind to the tinfoil hat theory. I have to say it is a reasonable thing to think of, but now that that war over there is not going so well, do you and others really think it will come to pass for the bases to occur? If there is one boot left on the ground from the infadel group, it will not work, period. If the Sunni group wre in more of the government, then maybe, but not now that Iran is in with their foot/boot in-country, with money and training of troops/police. There has to be a way to move around the drugs and guns and it has to go thru Iraq to other destinations which includes Africa, btw. Then we have to look at the destination of going thru the north as well, thru Russia and their likes. I know, there are many questions out there to be answered as to the bases, but I think it is a wavering scenario that America an dits allies can not get a grip on. This is just my thinking after reading many topics on things. Then look again at the pipeline wanted by Pakistan/India and such as this. So many variables to look at as to why or why not. Am I making any sense here? It has never been about democracy ever! Oil yes to a degree, but for many other reasons as well.
besides we havent heard any more about our GREAT embassy, have we??!! How is that coming along too? If the Green Zone can ot be any more secure than it is already then go for broke, so to speak. There has not been a cohearent policy for Iraq and never has been they seem to be working it as they go along to see if they can get it done or not. If they cant do it then so be it so they say. It is just the begiinning of the whole war of rthe US. So hold onto your hat and get ready for more of the same old feces. This iadministration will say and do anything to hold onto the power they have in congress and other areas, even up an dincluding the elections here and elsewhere.
It will never be easy finding information on these for obvious reasons. The Pentagon does not want it known.
When questioned about ‘permanent’ bases in Iraq, Rumsfeld substituted the word ‘enduring.’ (The man is a poet!) That’s how they got their phoney name. Yes, I did read that they were consolidating them into 4 very large bases and the most consistent number that I found was 14.
It looks like a permanent occupation, 4 little US countries existing within Iraq.
As US citizens, paying for these bases, you could demand more information from your representatives in Congress.
I’m guessing the details are classified. And that since my Congressman is a Democrat, he doesn’t know either.
since my Congressman is a Democrat, he doesn’t know either.
Appalling, but probably true.
At least congressman is a Democrat. I wish Moore representated me. I have that Tom DeLay Clone Jim Asshat Ryun.
brain fails to engage with fingers.
At least your representative is a Democrat.
Details are classified, but the basics are not, otherwise
they would not question Rumsfeld in open hearings on the subject.
That might be another place to find information on the bases, the US Senate website, checking archives of hearings.
Thanks for the suggestion, sybil.
“4 little countries”
That’s a very good and no-doubt accurate way to say it.
I am thinking this is part one of this diary and part two will be when I take what else I learn here and then contact my Sen. and Congressman to see what they say. My Senator is Pat Roberts,Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I don’t expect to learn much but at least I’ll have their statements.
A few months into the invasion of Iraq I read the book “Rise of the Vulcans.” I’d recommend it to anyone who hasn’t read it. It provided me with the first complete understanding of what makes sense about why we invaded Iraq (I know all the stuff about oil and finishing what Daddy started were all part of it, but it never added up to me). In the book they point out that people like Wolfowitz were talking about the need for permanent military bases in the Middle East, and specifically in Iraq, as long ago as the 70’s. So, for me, these PERMANENT military bases are the main reason we invaded in the first place. Any talk from the Bush admin about ever getting out of Iraq is just bullshit!!
Oh, and in case you’re interested, the book also talks about the extra-constitutional plans that Cheney and Rumsfeld developed about bunkered teams that would take over the government in the case of a nuclear attack that killed the president. They actually practiced these drills regularly during the Reagan administration and you can bet that Cheney was implementing the plan when he disappeared after 9/11. Pretty creepy stuff.
I’m really glad you mentioned that book. I had heard about it, meant to read it, then forgot the title.
Info on those bunkered “teams” can be found here for those interested.
Pax
It seems to me that the Guardian is reporting perhaps the latest change of plans. I believe that they have realized that they can’t protect the bases that they once had planned. Al Asad though is out in the sticks and only sustained one successful attack that I know of. They got some mortars in that killed some Marines on the basketball court. Someone working within must have paced it off fairly accurately to accomplish that. The soldiers all walked across the basketball court going to chow back then. I do know that we have been doing our best to pull our soldiers out of harms way now for months. Al Asad is easy to defend and hard to “sneak” up to, they blow the water system and the power regularly though or they were last year, but that isn’t flesh and bone and easier to repair.
I’ve thought, too, that what they are probably doing is adjusting down, but not giving up their plans for permanent installations. From their point of view, the war will surely be a total failure if they lose that permanent military component. And the sad thing is that most Americans don’t even know that’s a, if not the, major reason we’re there.
But the insurgency will allow us to have a base there with any kind of peaceful stability when Hell freezes over. It would be like a tour of duty straight out of hell……six months of TOTAL SUCK. Anyhow, we are being told to get ready for Iraq tours to be six months long. That was before the leak of the troop draw down in 2006…….but now it makes sense, I couldn’t figure out how we were supposed to get ready for 6 month tours when we were so short handed. I wonder if the Stop Loss will be dropped also, half the fricken Army will be marching….in the other direction. Just me, but their idea about any base over there is a pipe dream! Wish they’d stop smoking crack! I don’t know if the average American will ever understand what Iraq was really about until years down the road and lots of reflection on the facts. Thank you for the base reminder…..so many reminders of so much bullshit needed to track accountability. Does this administration ever get any sleep. If I told so many lies I would be spending the rest of my life trying to cover my tracks.
Ahh, but see, they don’t cover their tracks at all. They just repeat themselves. They don’t explain. And since there are, at any given time, 3 stories floating around, they can always go back and pull out some quote where they said what they
Oh, it doesn’t make any sense. I can kind of see how reporters just gave up. How do you get people to realize that it actually doesn’t make any sense? None of it does.
this is so very true, Tracy. I think I beleive that if fact some pentagon stars too are knowledgable of this infrastructure as well. It seems more than ever, that the stars are so very political nowadays than ever. start=generals and such…admirals too.
Hello Kansas,
Thank you for bringing this salient issue out into the light for other inquiring minds to mull over.
The corporate media HAS conveniently whitewashed this little detail. This is one of our Empire’s sacred cows. Don’t expect neo-liberals or neoconservatives to question this hegemonic prerogative at all.
Even, some hallowed blogs, such as Juan Cole’s Informed Comment have conveniently chosen to ignore it. I don’t know if you were party to Cole’s UN Option proposal and the resultant debate over it at DKos and elsewhere, but the “reality” of the construction of these bases was left out of the discussion. This is part of an e-mail I wrote to Juan Cole regarding his UN Option, for which I never received a response:
“Many have said” (I sound like Fauxnews) that our occupation has actually brought the Sunni / and Shia to common cause against us and have stirred nationalist sentiment across Arab-Muslim denominations (Kurds excepted.) Is this bogus or overplayed in your estimation?
Is it truly your contention that cooler Iraqi heads will not prevail and that no indigenous power sharing arrangement could be worked out?
3) With Iraq as a substitute to Saudi Arabia for forward deployment of US troops and resultant power projection throughout this energy-rich region, where would we then place our 5-15 ( based on differing reports) permanent military bases already under construction? Isn’t any discussion of withdrawal a non-starter for this very reason?
Any discussion of TRUE withdrawal is moot when the reality is that these bases are deemed critical by both political parties.
Michael Ruppert of http://www.fromthewilderness.com ,
has a very revealing map of proposed US bases relative to known oil deposits in his “Crossing the Rubicon.” I encourage you to purchase the book, or at least stroll over to your local Border’s and consult this uncanny map.
Stability in Iraq is at best a secondary or tertiary concern for US, we must have the military capability to seize these oil fields and those on the Saudi border in the event of a populist Islamist overthrow of the house of Saud. We must be in the neighborhood to prevent Russian, Chinese, and to a lesser degree Indian direct control or influence over these key oil reserves, in this era of Peak Oil.
In addition to securing these reserves for our near term use, these permanent military bases allow us to project US military power throughout this energy rich region. Since the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union the US has been busily constructing military bases throughout this energy rich corridor. The former Soviet republics in Central Asia are now littered with US military bases. We are building bases in Azerbaijan as well. We are keen to do so in Georgia, too.
This snippet from the San Francisco Call reinforces what I’m trying to illustrate:
Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched.
“Think of Iraq as virgin territory…. This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently… .It is the superstar of the future.” Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn’t a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq…. its location, nestled between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: “Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath…. You can’t ask for better than that.”8
The likelihood is that as the economic competition with China, India, Japan, and the EU heats up, the U.S. will continue trying to expand its military presence around the world, especially in oil-rich and strategically important areas. “Demand for oil in China is growing at a blistering rate, about 30% to 40% a year. Demand is coming not just from China, but also from India and the rest of the developing world,” says Anne Korin of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.9 One has to wonder which will run out first, the oil or the money necessary to support the vast military web trying to control it.
The wars of the last two decades had little to do with the oft-repeated mantras of freedom, liberty, and human rights, nor were there serious efforts to resolve problems through negotiations. “Washington went to war not as a last resort,” says Grossman, “but because it saw war as a convenient opportunity to further larger goals.”10 As a people whose armed forces are inflicting misery throughout the world, whose economy is being bankrupted, and whose sons and daughters are dying in these wars, we must commit ourselves to opposing the militarism and imperialism, which drive our country’s foreign policy. Another world is possible!
This is a nice synopsis of the history and purpose of our 700+, let me repeat, 700+ foreign military bases:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/indexprint.mhtml?pid=1181
Incidentally, if you haven’t already I strongly recommend these TomDispatches.
This is a treasure trove of leads and info. Thank you, Neo. I need to read and ponder before commenting more, except to say that you have brought out what for me is the most important issue here. These bases, along with oil, are the elephant in the room of any discussion of what we’re going to do, or not do, in Iraq. It seems either blind or dishonest to ignore them.
Tx for beginning this crucial discussion Kansas, I hope we are joined by many. Let me make one slight editorial comment on my preceding post. Don’t let my judicious wording to Juan fool you.
I’m horrified by:
1)”our” quest for American hegemony
2)The blur between neo-liberal and neo-conservative desired outcomes
3)One-party rule in the US
4)the criminality of invading and continuing to occupy Iraq
Seems to me you’ve got the makings of a dozen diaries of your own in there. The more we talk about this, and the more often, the better, imo.
just a little tidbit, they use boomans lilypad and frog anlalogy to ‘scribe these outposts…I found that rather funny….
Huh?
read the tom dispacth link above. that is what I was refering to.
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in early 2001, as soon as 9/11 happened it was clear to me that this would be the pretext the neocons sought, (their “Pearl Harbor”), in order to begin their militaristic transformation and dominance of the Middle East. (This quote from the above mentioned screed, [p.50-51] relates specifically to this point.
On 9/12 a very good friend from Lebanon said to me; “Now they’ll go after Saddam”. The obviousness of his perspective, combined with the aggressive and brutal stupidity of bin Laden attacking the US, (more likely his mentor Zawahiri dreamed up the 9/11 plan), and the psychotic ambition of Cheney & Co, convinced me that we were going to be in for perpetual war for the foreseeable future, at least until such time as we were able to gain control of all the petroleum reserves in the region.
Now, 4 years later, things are going pretty much as we envisioned. Because none of the routine tactical measures were taken to prevent civil disorder from spiraling out of control in the aftermath of the invasion, we’ve caused the majority of Iraqis to distrust us. Because we refused to implement typical security measures,(such as guarding the ammo dumps) we guaranteed there would be plenty of weaponry available for those who might choose to fight us. Because we made the absurd decision to disband the Iraqi army and send 400,000 young Iraqi males straight to the unemployment lines rather than employing them for helping maintain civil order, we guaranteed there’d be plenty of angry people willing to pick up those armaments we left unguarded and use those weapons against us.
All the talk of freedom and democracy is pure bullshit. We deliberately provided the motivation and the weaponry for disaffected Iraqis to use against us. We deliberately made sure that the infrastructure would remain damaged enough so that the average Iraqis would suffer and in their suffering become more angry. We knew the tribal, Sunni/Shia/Kurdish animosities would flare up out of control in an environment where so many other bad things were happening, and this is what is happening now. In short, we deliberately set out to create the insurgency within Iraq and provide them the weapons to kill our own soldiers.
The violence is itensifying, and it’s spreading. We, (the Bush regime) has set about to create the conditions for civil war and they have succeeded. This is why these 14-16 permanent, hardened military bases are being constructed. The neocons anticipated all this way back in 2002. They knew once the civil war ramped up to full speed the only way they’d be able to convince the American public that we needed to keep 100,000+ soldiers there would be if they could be secured behind the blast shields of these bases while the Iraqis were busy killing each other out on the streets.
(I had no idea this would turn into such a rant, but I hope those who might slog through it all may find these comments useful.
of course, of course…I slogged thru it. this is how I learn. I find your theroy interesting, to say the least. I find your theory more realistic than ever. Knowing our administration that is how they think and do things. Amazing isnt it??!!
the PNACers, the Bush regime operatives, and their big money propagandists; all of them are certifiable psychopaths, fascist types bent on fulfilling their absurd global hegemonic ambition.
Even a cursory of the history of humankind reveals that all those who seek dominion through empire think their’s is the way that will succeed, and all of them then proceed to replicate the catastrophic behavior of their predecessors.
Those contaminated with this sort of aggressive ambition never learn. The strength of their denial of reality is truly astonishing.
The guys running the war in Iraq are no dummies. There was NO exit plan, ’cause they are not leaving. Obvious from the beginning. Haliburton’s registers are ringing away, too much money to be made. Only YOU can prevent wars !! Smokey the Teddy Bear
I will just quote the mention of the Middle East:
Toward a Global Calvary
“‘Everything Is Moving Everywhere’
Today’s U.S. global force posture is an anachronistic, but entrenched, inheritance of the Cold War. More than 80 percent of U.S. soldiers in Europe are stationed in Germany, waiting for a Soviet invasion that will never happen. In the Pacific, over 75 percent of U.S. troops are bottled up in South Korea and Japan. The Bush administration has recognized that the status quo is no longer acceptable; that the preeminent mission of the U.S. military is no longer the containment of the Soviet Union, but the preemption of terrorism. This is the strategic reality that is driving the realignment of the network of American bases and installations overseas. “Everything is moving everywhere,” said Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy. “There is not going to be a place in the world where it’s going to be the same as it used to be. We’re going to rationalize our posture everywhere.” Apologies for quoting Feith.
SNIP…” The Middle East
“In the Middle East, victory against Saddam Hussein has allowed the Pentagon to begin pulling U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, making our access to the region less dependent on the fickle loyalties of the royal family and denying Osama bin Laden one of his main talking points. While 10,000 U.S. military personnel and 200 aircraft were deployed at Prince Sultan Air Base during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March, everything but two small training missions will be gone by the end of this summer. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has called this withdrawal an “almost unnoticed but huge” benefit of the war: “Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door” to a more peaceful Middle East.[6]
Even as the United States winds down its presence in Saudi Arabia, it is constructing a new force posture in the region. Although the Bush administration has promised that American troops will remain in Iraq “not a day longer than necessary” to secure a stable and decent government there, the protection of the embryonic Iraqi democracy is a duty that will likely extend for decades, much like our commitment to defend the fragile democracies of Western Europe from the Soviet Union after World War II. The Pentagon has disavowed reports in the New York Times and Jane’s Defence Weekly that it hopes to establish four quasi-permanent airbases in Iraq-at Bashur in the Kurdish north; Tallil in the south; H-1 in the west; and Baghdad International Airport–but the logic of such an arrangement is undeniable. At the same time, the United States will maintain access rights to airstrips and seaports across the Gulf, from Oman to Bahrain, which can be activated and expanded in the event of a regional crisis…..”END QUOTE
And from another end of the spectrum, an article by Ari Berman at The Nation shows that Global Security has located bases supposedly:
A Permanent Presence
“In his first debate with President Bush, John Kerry made a surprisingly bold assertion about US policy toward Iraq: “I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it,” Kerry said. “As I understand it, we’re building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they’ve got a rather permanent concept to them.”
Though the media ignored Kerry’s statement and failed to do any substantive follow-up research, his comments were well-grounded in reality. On the day of the debate the Christian Science Monitor spotlighted the findings of defense specialist John Pike, whose website, GlobalSecurity.org, located twelve “enduring bases” in Iraq, including satellite photos and names. In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that US engineers were constructing fourteen such long-term encampments–the number Kerry referred to. The New York Times previously placed the number at four.”
Global Security
This should be a diary here.
What alternative have the Democrats conjured for managing Iraq?
I already know what the Republican plan is–to keep Iraq as an American puppet and base of operations in the Arabian Peninsula.
What is the Democratic alternative? Does anyone know?
Here’s the problem for a Democratic president (should Americans elect one in 2008):
If a Democratic president withdraws all American troops from Iraq, and Iraq then falls to an anti-American regime, the Democrats will be the ones who “lost” Iraq. Ask Jimmy Carter what happens to Democratic presidents when a Middle Eastern country thumbs its nose at you.
Not only that, but any future president has got to answer to some VERY powerful corporate interests (including the oil conglomerates) as well as to the military-industrial-congressional complex–all significant factors weighing heavily against a Democratic-led withdrawal from Iraq.
As I see it, whether a future president is a Democrat or Republican, the future of the Iraqi people will not be theirs to determine–the best Democrats can do (and have done) is offer to manage the mess more competently. But Americans are in Iraq to stay–some of the bases they’ve built have some of the finest American anti-aircraft technology available, not to mention highly classified communications technology, and the Americans are NEVER going to hand those over to Iraqis.
Besides, even if there is an interruption of four or even eight years, from 2008-2012 or 2008-2016, when a Democratic president successfully resists the pressure to attack Iran, the Plan operates on the long term…the PNAC crowd are going to continue to work to arrange their centrepiece, the War Against Iran. I believe it’s coming sooner rather than later, for reasons I’ve detailed elsewhere.
If the Democrats are going to change the course of the United States, they need to renounce American imperialism, not offer to manage the Empire more effectively. But my question is–will they? Do they dare?
This needs full-on diary treatment.
I read a chilling, very well-documented book not long ago by Chalmers Johnson called “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic” (2004) that I can recommend to anyone interested in the US’s “basing” activities since WWII. It’s utterly frightening, and this guy is an Asia scholar who knows his stuff. I’ve loaned the book to a friend so I can’t get any pertinent quotes from it right now, but I can say that after reading that title absolutely NOTHING would surprise me about our plans in Iraq. Sixteen bases sounds perfectly reasonable, given what we’ve been up to for decades already.
Johnson’s previous book on our military imperialism was “Blowback”, and I’ve yet to read it but plan to.
Right, the last link I provided in my preceding post is an excerpt from Johnson’s book. Good call.