Permanent Bases - and Long Term Iraq Plans

[FlaSoxxJim]

U.S. military: Victory no longer an option in Iraq.

 

“The U.S. military is already gearing up for this outcome [long-term ‘containment’ of violence], but not for ‘victory’ any longer. It is consolidating to several ’superbases‘ in hopes that its continued presence will prevent Iraq from succumbing to full-flown civil war and turning into a failed state.”

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12920385/site/newsweek

 

Hmm, permanent US military "Superbases" in Iraq. . . nobody couuld have seen that coming. :rolly

[The Ginger Kid]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12920385/site/newsweek

 

Hmm, permanent US military "Superbases" in Iraq. . . nobody couuld have seen that coming. :rolly

 

The Arabs love it when we put permanent bases on their land. I wish we had a few of their bases over here.

[YASNY]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12920385/site/newsweek

 

Hmm, permanent US military "Superbases" in Iraq. . . nobody couuld have seen that coming. :rolly

 

Anybody with half a brain could see that coming. The US has been doing that for quite some time now. We've had bases in Germany since WWII. Clarke AFB was in the Phillipines till just recently. Both being strategically located during the cold war. Considering the historical volatileness of the Middle East and the importance of oil in the world today and in the future, putting permanent bases there only makes sense.

[Rex Kickass]

Except we said we would not build permanent bases there. It was a way to sell the war.

[YASNY]

Except we said we would not build permanent bases there. It was a way to sell the war.

 

I, for one, never believed that wasn't part of the long range plans.

[Mplssoxfan]

Here's a pdf of a map of all 59 countries we have a military base in, as of 2002.

 

Pat Robertson has reportedly broken the world record for leg pressing, by over 660 pounds.

 

My opinion? There was a translation error from the last time Pat spoke in tongues. What he really said was, "I picked up a package with 2000 one-Pound notes".

[Rex Kickass]

I, for one, never believed that wasn't part of the long range plans.

 

So it's ok to lie, as long as you don't believe it?

[FlaSoxxJim]

So it's ok to lie, as long as you don't believe it?

 

You must have missed the George gave the hawks when he said no permanent bases.

[YASNY]

So it's ok to lie, as long as you don't believe it?

 

Show me where Bush said that, and I'll believe you.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Show me where Bush said that, and I'll believe you.

 

If you accept that the Bush Administration is speaking with one voice then it has been said on several occassions, and implied as often as possible.

 

Just after the Fall of Baghdad, a Shanker and Schmitt NYT piece nailed the truth of the matter, that. . .

 

the Pentagon was planning to "maintain" four bases in Iraq for the long haul, though "there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops." Rather than speak of "permanent bases," the military preferred then to speak coyly of "permanent access" to Iraq.

 

Any talk of permanent bases in the NeoCon "arc of instability" was, of course, completely at odds with our stated mission of liberating Iraq, so Rummy very quickly got down to quashing this storyline:

 

At a press conference a few days after the Shanker and Schmitt piece appeared, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. was "unlikely to seek any permanent or ‘long-term' bases in Iraq" -- and that was that. The Times' piece was essentially sent down the memory hole.

 

There have been more administrations denials of the plans for permanent bases since then:

 

The Secretary of Defense: "During a visit with U.S. troops in Fallujah on Christmas Day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said ‘at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases' in Iraq. ‘It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government.'"

 

Karen Hughes on the Charlie Rose Show: "CHARLIE ROSE: …they think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq? KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job. CHARLIE ROSE: And do not want to keep bases there? KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible."

 

Top military brass has said as much also:

 

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq: "We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis. Those are not simply plans to do so; they are being executed right now. It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq."

 

You are absolutely right of course, YAS, permanent bases have always been a cornerstone of the Bush Iraq "reconstruction" plan. As has the denial of such aims by the administration:

 

The Bush administration does not discuss them (other than to deny their permanency from time to time). No presidential speeches deal with them. No plans for them are debated in Congress. The opposition Democrats generally ignore them and the press -- with the exception of the odd columnist -- won't even put the words "base," "permanent," and "Iraq" in the same paragraph.

 

Note: all of the included quotes are from an online column that ran in February on The Nation Institute website. Nation Institute has a "fundamental commitment to the values of free speech and open discourse."

[YASNY]

It's not just Bush, it's been the m.o. of the English speaking peoples for centuries. At one point in time, 'the sun never set on the British empire'. England or the US controlled the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Straits of Gibralter ... in other words, the 'gates' of the world. It's always been that way and it will always be that way as long as we are militarily able to do so. When there is a 'hotspot' somewhere, there will be Enlgish speaking military there as well.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's not just Bush, it's been the m.o. of the English speaking peoples for centuries. At one point in time, 'the sun never set on the British empire'. England or the US controlled the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Straits of Gibralter ... in other words, the 'gates' of the world. It's always been that way and it will always be that way as long as we are militarily able to do so. When there is a 'hotspot' somewhere, there will be Enlgish speaking military there as well.

 

I agree that is and has been the strategy long before this administration. The fact remains that it doesn't square with the words coming from the administration:

 

On the 21st of April [2003] Rumsfeld said in a press briefing “I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting … we don't plan to function as an occupier, we don't plan to prescribe to any new government how we ought to be arranged in their country… We have no desire to be there for long periods, we simply don't. And that's just a cold, hard fact."

 

In February 2005, Rumsfeld reported again to the Senate Armed Services Committee: "we have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

 

And of course we've dressed our true designs up in euphemisms for a long tiime. Even bases in Germany are usually referred to as 'enduring' rather than permanent.

Edited May 25, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[YASNY]

I agree that is and has been the strategy long before this administration. The fact remains that it doesn't square with the words coming from the administration:

And of course we've dressed our true designs up in euphemisms for a long tiime. Even bases in Germany are usually referred to as 'enduring' rather than permanent.

 

You've presented some compelling quotes there. But, they can easily say that permanent bases were not planned at the time those statements were made. Plans change. When listening to politicians ... any politicians ... always know they use the nuances of the language to say what they want to say without saying too much.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes they can say it. But neither you or I or anybody who has been paying attention hase ever for one second believed it, despite the parsing and plausible deniability soundbytes.

 

I, for one, never believed that wasn't part of the long range plans.

 

You are not alone.

[YASNY]

Yes they can say it. But neither you or I or anybody who has been paying attention hase ever for one second believed it, despite the parsing and plausible deniability soundbytes.

You are not alone.

 

Exactly. Which is why I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. They sidestepped the issue all along. Anyone had to know it was coming.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Exactly. Which is why I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. They sidestepped the issue all along. Anyone had to know it was coming.

 

People are up in arms about it because they are starting to see the reality of permanent bases - and their monetary and world stability costs - despite having been told this wasn't the plan.

 

Congresspersons have slowly begun to get up in arms because they recognize the difference between the administration's lipservice and the actual construction activities in Iraq. They also recognize that they never voted for the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and many have serious reservations about it. They are trying to rectify the at-odds issues through things like Barbara Lee's HCR 197, the "No Permanent Bases Resolution"

 

* H. Con. Res. 197 will make it policy that the U.S. has no intent on being a permanent occupying presence in Iraq.

* This resolution will also send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq.

* Both the President and Secretary Rumsfeld share this view:

 

The resolution states:

 

That the Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.

 

Lee and Kucinich got a voice vote approval in March of a spending bill amendment that is trying to financially make sure a permanency that Congress never voted for is not funded with money granted through the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

 

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being available to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

 

Biden's amendment is similar in its goals

 

Sen. Biden's amendment barring spending in the bill to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

Edited May 25, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[YASNY]

Everything you listed is a bunch of grandstanding. Congress knew damn well how this was going to turn out. Mark my words. If we get Dem majority and a Dem president in '08, there WILL be strategic bases in Iraq. Book it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Everything you listed is a bunch of grandstanding. Congress knew damn well how this was going to turn out. Mark my words. If we get Dem majority and a Dem president in '08, there WILL be strategic bases in Iraq. Book it.

 

I don't doubt that one bit. We will be paying for the miscalculations of the GWB administration and the mistakes in Iraq for years to come.

[YASNY]

I don't doubt that one bit. We will be paying for the miscalculations of the GWB administration and the mistakes in Iraq for years to come.

 

But it's not just Bush. It's ALL of them. They're all part of it. They're all in on it. They grandstand and throw accusations at each for the sake of distracting the public from what is really going on. Take your blinders off. Stop focusing on Bush and look at the big picture.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But it's not just Bush. It's ALL of them. They're all part of it. They're all in on it. They grandstand and throw accusations at each for the sake of distracting the public from what is really going on. Take your blinders off. Stop focusing on Bush and look at the big picture.

 

The conversation is heading into new directions probably worthy of more than the catch-all Dem thread. But I think I am looking at the big picture, which is basically that the actions of this heavily NeoCon policy-influenced administration have caused us as a country to pretty much screw the pooch as far as our world position/power/alliances/economy for decades to come.

[Rex Kickass]

So, YAS - let's restate this then. It's ok to lie about aims of war, as long as nobody "really" believes it.

[YASNY]

So, YAS - let's restate this then. It's ok to lie about aims of war, as long as nobody "really" believes it.

 

I contend that there was never an outright lie. They just did what all politicians do. That is, bend the truth to meet their momentary needs. And don't try and tell me the Dems don't do that.

 

"I've never had sexual relations with that woman" is a prime example of bending the truth.

 

The conversation is heading into new directions probably worthy of more than the catch-all Dem thread. But I think I am looking at the big picture, which is basically that the actions of this heavily NeoCon policy-influenced administration have caused us as a country to pretty much screw the pooch as far as our world position/power/alliances/economy for decades to come.

 

You're correct about the direction this is headed, but at least it's not a contentuous conversation. As for the last part of your post, that remains to be seen. But, yes, the possibility does exist.

Edited May 25, 2006 by YASNY

[kapkomet]

But it's not just Bush. It's ALL of them. They're all part of it. They're all in on it. They grandstand and throw accusations at each for the sake of distracting the public from what is really going on. Take your blinders off. Stop focusing on Bush and look at the big picture.

 

The conversation is heading into new directions probably worthy of more than the catch-all Dem thread. But I think I am looking at the big picture, which is basically that the actions of this heavily NeoCon policy-influenced administration have caused us as a country to pretty much screw the pooch as far as our world position/power/alliances/economy for decades to come.

I agree, yet disagree. Perhaps we should split this out, because there's a good conversation that can be had on this. I was thinking last night in my Org. Development class - our topic was "group-think" for the first part of class and the second part was about international business and culture. I have some interesting thoughts I'd like to share on this to see what you all think - some are political related and some aren't. I'd actually like to write an article on this because I think what I'm thinking about has to be a pretty interesting thread of thought on the successes and failures of the administration and the hierarchial structure of Iraq.

[kapkomet]

ok topic split. s***, that was FAST. I love the new database software.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'll get this thing rolling with the DEFINITIVE statement on bases:

 

ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!!