Permanent Bases in Iraq

[Winstonm]

I met someone recently who had an army buddy just back from Iraq. This army buddy stated that the U.S. is building 4 massive permanent military bases in Iraq.

I had not heard of this so did some searching on the internet:

 

As the New York Times revealed in a front-page piece by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt on April 19, 2003, just after Baghdad fell, the Pentagon arrived in the Iraqi capital with plans already on the drawing board to build four massive military bases (that no official, then or now, will ever call "permanent"). Today, according to our former Secretary of Defense, we have 55 bases of every size in Iraq (down from over 100); five or six of these, including Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad, the huge base first named Camp Victory adjacent to Baghdad International Airport, and al-Asad Airbase in western Anbar province, are enormous -- big enough to be reasonable-sized American towns with multiple bus routes, neighborhoods, a range of fast-food restaurants, multiple PX's, pools, mini-golf courses and the like.

 

Though among the safest places in Iraq for American reporters, these bases have, with rare exceptions, gone completely undescribed and undiscussed in our press (or on the television news). From an engineering journal, we know that before the end of 2003, several billion dollars had already been sunk into them. We know that in early 2006, the major ones, already mega-structures, were still being built up into a state of advanced permanency. Balad, for instance, already handled the levels of daily air traffic you would normally see at Chicago's ultra-busy O'Hare and in February its facilities were still being ramped up. We know, from the reliable Ed Harriman, in the latest of his devastating accounts of corruption in Iraq in the London Review of Books, that, as you read, the four mega-bases always imagined as our permanent jumping-off spots in what Bush administration officials once liked to call "the arc of instability" were still undergoing improvement.

 

Without taking the fate of those monstrous, always-meant-to-be-permanent bases into account--and they are, after all, just about the only uniformly successfully construction projects in that country--no American plans for Iraq, whatever label they go by, will make much sense. And yet months go by without any reporting on them appearing. In fact, these last months have gone by with only a single peep (that I've found) from any mainstream publication on the subject.

 

The sole bit of base news I've noticed anywhere made an obscure mid-October appearance in a Turkish paper, which reported that the U.S. was now building a "military airport" in Kurdistan. A few days later, a UPI report picked up by the Washington Times had this: "Following hints U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for years, the United States is reportedly building a massive military base at Arbil, in Kurdish northern Iraq."

 

This would put things more into perspective - if the agenda was always to establish major military bases in Iraq then there would have been no reason to have a withdrawl plan prior to invasion, and there would be no withdrawl now. And it brings serious doubts about the reasons for the war in the first place.

[BebopKid]

Since this would have to be approved by Congress and has not been, I tend to think the information is wrong.

[mike777]

1) Pick any Democratic anti war candidate.

2) Do you think the USA will have a major base in Iraq for years from now?

3) Pick whoever you think will win in 2008

4) Now you got to bet your house

[Winstonm]

Since this would have to be approved by Congress and has not been, I tend to think the information is wrong.

Congress did - in 2003 budget - but in a sly way. At least, according to the what I have read.

 

However, if it is true that the U.S. had planned all along to establish 4 major permanent bases in Iraq, then the entire escapade into Iraq takes on a whole new meaning - and the MSM has been absolutely closed mouth on the subject.

[Winstonm]

1) Pick any Democratic anti war candidate.

2) Do you think the USA will have a major base in Iraq for years from now?

3) Pick whoever you think will win in 2008

4) Now you got to bet your house

I think you are right, Mike. The only way this involvement might ever end is if there is a fracturing of the U.S. into polarization as serious as occured during the Vietnam era. Until mass protests are held, demonstrations, riots, students being shot on campus - the power elite will ignore polls and continue with status quo.

 

The interesting thing is the more difficult it becomes for the bulk of the U.S. population to earn a living - the middle and lower classes - the less time they have to spend on greater questions and the more time they spend focused on their own narrow world of bills and mortgages and car payments - and just a little time for escape with the NFL and American Idol. It is not until you completely destroy hope and entirely eliminate the middle and lower classes are there enough desperate people to invoke radical change - a la the French Revolution.

[pbleighton]

"1) Pick any Democratic anti war candidate.

2) Do you think the USA will have a major base in Iraq for years from now?

3) Pick whoever you think will win in 2008

4) Now you got to bet your house "

 

I think it is very unlikely that we will have a major base in Iraq in five years, if Obama or Edwards is elected. If Hilary is elected, it is somewhat unlikely.

 

It's possible that we may have a small, uninvolved presence, primarily technical.

 

I'm a renter :)

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

The sole bit of base news I've noticed anywhere made an obscure mid-October appearance in a Turkish paper, which reported that the U.S. was now building a "military airport" in Kurdistan. A few days later, a UPI report picked up by the Washington Times had this: "Following hints U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for years, the United States is reportedly building a massive military base at Arbil, in Kurdish northern Iraq."

As somebody who thinks we should be pulling our troops out of Iraq, I'm in favor of this one. The Kurds have been our allies for decades, and a real airbase there would both make us less reliant on the Turkish airbases and make it far less likely for Turkey or Iran to attack Iraq. Its sole purpose would be to deal with threats outside of Iraq, much the way Rammstein is used. I will go so far as to say we owe the Kurds an airbase there if they want us to stay.

 

The other bases...those sound like they're for dealing with struggles internal to Iraq (particularly the one in Anbar), and I'm not in favor of that. Protecting Iraq from invasion, yes. Protecting them from civil war, no. The Iraqis should deal with that on their own.

[Winstonm]

The sole bit of base news I've noticed anywhere made an obscure mid-October appearance in a Turkish paper, which reported that the U.S. was now building a "military airport" in Kurdistan. A few days later, a UPI report picked up by the Washington Times had this: "Following hints U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for years, the United States is reportedly building a massive military base at Arbil, in Kurdish northern Iraq."

As somebody who thinks we should be pulling our troops out of Iraq, I'm in favor of this one. The Kurds have been our allies for decades, and a real airbase there would both make us less reliant on the Turkish airbases and make it far less likely for Turkey or Iran to attack Iraq. Its sole purpose would be to deal with threats outside of Iraq, much the way Rammstein is used. I will go so far as to say we owe the Kurds an airbase there if they want us to stay.

 

The other bases...those sound like they're for dealing with struggles internal to Iraq (particularly the one in Anbar), and I'm not in favor of that. Protecting Iraq from invasion, yes. Protecting them from civil war, no. The Iraqis should deal with that on their own.

You sound like you know the region well - and I defer to your superior knowledge in these areas and thus cannot agree or disagree.

 

I do find it enlightening that permanent bases were part of the initial invasion plan - which makes one question even more the rationalizations claimed to go to war and the further rationalizations to escalate and win the war.

 

Once again permanent bases seem more consistent with the PNAC master plan than fighting global terror or offering Iraqis freedom and democracy.

[Al_U_Card]

doh!

[jtfanclub]

You sound like you know the region well - and I defer to your superior knowledge in these areas and thus cannot agree or disagree.

Eh, I read places like this a lot. I certainly don't claim to be an expert. I think Hrothgar's a better resource than I am.