This is news that broke last year, but, since I’ve found no source stating that construction plans have been altered, I’ll assume it’s still valid. For a more recent discussion, see this piece by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2323/
Now, if we’re planning to pull out any time soon, why build these “enduring bases”? The only explanations I can think of:
The occupation of Iraq is intended to last indefinitely, despite the Admin’s vague protestations to the contrary.
Even if Iraq reaches a point where we can say it is no longer “occupied,” the U.S. intends to keep it indefinitely within the U.S. military sphere, like West Germany during the Cold War.
Either explanation would be equally unacceptable to Iraqi nationalists of any kind. Either way, so long as the bases are there, the insurgents will keep fighting. So why build them?
My view : To keep control of the oil, keep the government our puppet, and to serve as a staging point for a general invasion and conquest of the Middle East. Personally, I expect all three to fail.
Inertia. The bases were part of the plan that hinged on Iraqis throwing roses at the GI’s feet and instantly transforming itself in to a nice, secular Arab democromarket for cheap crude. Happy Iraqis gladly would let us build big bases whence we could scare the holy bejeezus out of places like Syria and Iran.
So, hey, why throw the baby out with the bathwater, right?
When you say “keep the oil,” you’re well aware that the majority of Iraqi oil is not sold to the United States, right? Do you really believe that the US invaded so that it could purchase something like 40% of Iraqi oil production at $60+ dollars a barrel?
The bases are build for the same reason we have bases throughout Europe from WW2, Guantanamo in Cuba, etc.
Because it’s strategically beneficial.
There’s plenty to take the Bush Administration to task on regarding Iraq. U.S. Military Doctrine that has been in effect since the Spanish-American war isn’t one of those things.
It was a typographical error: they were intended to be endearing bases, once they Iraqis discovered just how lovable we were–sort of like Disney World + Abrams tanks.
What’s the legal status on the continued American military presense in Iraq? We went in there supposedly because the existing regime was defying UN resolutions. Say what you will; Saddam is no longer in power - is the new Iraqi government bound by the old restrictions? If not, what are we doing in Iraq? Has the new Iraqi government asked the US to stay? Has it asked us to leave? Has some point be defined when we can say “our work here is done, let’s go home”?
Is this a suprise to people? I could have sworn I remember permanent military bases in Iraq as a “realpolitik” justification for war from the beginning. That way we can exert a greater influence in the ME without, hopefully, inflaming the muslim fundamentalists like we did in Saudi Arabia.
Not purchase, control. The idea is to keep it from countries we don’t like, such as China; not buy it ourselves. Why would an oilman flood the market ? PNAC in action.
Even if we planned to leave any time soon (no idea where this impression comes from…certainly Bush hasn’t released anything resembling a time table on withdrawl nor even spoken of it except in vague terms), it makes sense to build more secure bases to protect our troops while they are there. We can always simply turn them over to the Iraqi’s after all…assuming we plan to leave.
I think that originally the plan was to build such bases in a relatively peaceful (and grateful) Iraq so that we could maintain a military presence in the region without stationing troops in Saudi…i.e. we wanted a ‘friendly’ nation that was also beholden to us (for ‘liberating’ them). In fact, I think this was a major reason we DID invade…to have such perminent bases so strategically located in case there were any flair ups in the region. We’d then have (presumably) all our heavy equipment already staged up, with basing and runways so we could fly in the troops and whatever else we needed on short notice to put a hurtin on someone if needs be.
That plan sort of went out the air lock (in more ways than one), but the inertia of such a project would still carry through…the money and resources had been allocated after all. Long term I doubt even Bush thinks we’ll maintain a major presence in Iraq now, not with the way things have turned out. Certainly not after the next elections reguardless of who wins (I figure both sides will have a master plan to ‘get us out’, assuming Bush doesn’t already start by then).
Interesting. When does this, er, plan start to kick in? After we get the bases finished? When Bush is crowned king of the world? And if we could control whether or not Iraq sells its oil to China (quite a feet since they sell their oil on the world market), why wouldn’t we simply redirect it to ourselves? With that kind of control why screw around?
Disagree. You may have a point if they just started building these bases today (or only allocated the funds for them this year)…but you have to look at the bases in the context of when they were originally PLANNED and funded BG. I think its a good example (for the time) to look at them in the context of the bases in Europe during the cold war.
Maybe, but you gotta wonder if its not merely symptomatic of terminal CD. The enduring bases were planned for a grateful and sympathetic Iraq, who would (presumably) like nothing better but to provide a platform from which America can project its power, from the largest aircraft carrier in Known Space.
Why should they change their minds? Things are really going fairly well in Iraq, after a rocky start, but hey! democracy is messy! And its hard, too! These things take time to work out, but with elections and all, and all those positive signs, who’s to doubt that things are going to be just peachy if we simply stay the course! What, we worry?
And when things do, finally, run their course, and Iraq becomes a placid parliamentary democracy and staunch supporter of US policy, and beseeches their bestest pals ever, the USA, to maintain a robust military presence…
Well, then, those critics and carpers who questioned the advisability and the motives for building these bases will sure look dumb!
Of course, it would be really a drag if it turned out we built these military facilities for an increasingly hostile Iraq, but come on! how likely is that? What, you think these guys are stupid? Or something?
It kicks in about the same time the Iraqis throw flowers at our soldiers feet, and they gratefully do whatever we tell them. I didn’t say it was a good plan; these guys wouldn’t know a good plan if it was rammed down their throats. With this administration’s track record, I half expect these bases to be turned into bastions of the insurgency somehow.
I notice in the first report, from last February, it was said that American troop levels would be decreasing by year’s end. In the second report, from last May, the departure has been moved back to two years. What’s the current schedule?
I’m actually glad about this. If we don’t have a lasting military presence in the Middle East, well we’re basically in bad shape at ever solving any of the problems in that region.
I think there is a certain misconception about the “troubles” in Iraq right now. Iraqis are a proud people, they don’t like seeing Americans on the streets. Rightly or wrongly this makes some of them angry to the point of violence. I think there is always going to be the sustained attacks as long as there is a highly public U.S. troop presence in Iraq. I think this would be the case with any country in the region that we invaded and occupied. However, unlike most, I just view this as a side-effect of being there, I don’t actually buy into the fact it is indicative of a general “problem.”
I think eventually, with time, the Iraqi government will settle down, there will be a pretty solid framework and things will start to progress politically. Most importantly people will beging to respect the new government. There are basically two ways a government can maintain “legitimacy.” Passively or positively. Saddam went the positive route, he was legitimate because if you didn’t accept his right to rule he killed you, probably your family along with you. Passively however, Bush maintains his legitimacy to rule via the democratic institutions we have set up here. He won an election, through years of tradition we’ve come to accept that gives him legitimacy to rule. And the U.S. government at large is recognized as legitimate because hey, we created it, the people, it’s our creation and thus we respect it. Monarchs held passive legitimacy because almost no one questioned their right to rule simply because of their parentage. It was accepted that some people were born to rule, some were born to follow, and that’s just how it was.
I think eventually the Iraqi government will have enough legitimacy among the people that we won’t have to be constantly propping it up. And, for the entire amount of time it takes for that legitimacy to become established I don’t expect the death rate of U.S. soldiers to change, at all. That’s a “separate issue” in the minds of the Iraqis.
Eventually once things have gotten to this point, we can have a smaller troop presence, confined to the bases. It will be odious to some, but it won’t bring about the problems that the current troop presence does. It will be akin to our longstanding bases in Saudi Arabia. Some nationalists or Muslim extremists will be pissy about it, but we won’t have people dying every day over it.
One of Osama’s main justifications for the 9/11 attacks was the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. So I think it’s inncorrect to state that those Saudi bases didn’t cause us any trouble.
The new bases are a bad idea, as it keeps the reinforces the Iraqi view that the US is settling in their country for the long haul, instead of as keepers of the peace until Iraqi forces can be brought up to snuff.
Also the idea that this is happening because of “momentum” is a little bizarre. It’s not like Iraq is some backwater long forgotten by policy makers in DC. While I don’t have the greatest opinion of the Bush admin, I’m sure at some point between the end of the Iraqi invasion and now someone high up has reviewed these base plans in light of the current situation.
