'Enduring Bases' in Iraq: US Presence for Decades?

[G_j]

'Enduring Bases' in Iraq: US Presence for Decades (October 1, 2004)

Military experts in Washington assume that the new Iraqi government will need US support and therefore permanent bases in Iraq to avoid civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq. The plans for "enduring bases" reinforce suspicions that the US is only interested in oil in Iraq and wants to keep a puppet government in place in Baghdad. (Iraq News Net)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2004/1001bases.htm

[sweetheart]

1. Not for oil, geopolitical control of china & russia

Armies for the past several millenia have invaded and occupied these
lands for the same reason, to control asia by force.

To pretend it is for oil is only partly honest, and wholly deceptive.

It is a power grab. How would america feel if russia invaded and
put permanent bases in mexico... because there is oil there?...?
no. Russia and China see military adventurism, how could they not.

It would not suprise me at all one day to hear about a buncha
mushroom clouds "disappearing" entire US bases in afganistan and
iraq. Easy come easy go. When the army gets burned out of central
asia, i pray the pentagon assholes have the wisdom to not get
north america nuked as well.... but knowing the stupid assholes they
are, likely they'll give a shit and start shooting.

[never cry wolf]

2. Good analysis, but oil does play a part as well

Not so we have unfettered access to it, necessarily, but so that we can control the flow. The PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, was quite clear on this as a reason we needed a military presence in the ME.

The idea is that we are currently the only superpower but potential rivals could arise, such as china, a reconstituted russia or the EU. But that sort of industrialization and militarization takes alot of oil so if we can control the nozzle and cut off a rising power we can maintain our world dominance.

[sweetheart]

4. Have you played "command and conquor"?

Its a strategic war computer game, and to win, you must learn to
control the fuel supplies. However the game is slightly simplistic,
as if fuel only, is the staple of international accord.

Russia has enough fuel. China and Japan have a common interest with
the USA in keeping the middle east "flowing". The fact that russia
is rebuilding its nuclear arms model, is not suprising in the least
given these new bases near its borders... like those we dismantled
in turkey during the cuban missile crisis.

Kerry even mentioned 14 bases in the debates. The geopolitical
primer for a global nuclear war has been asserted by the neocon-nazi
fools, and must be de-fused carefully.

Oil is obvious, but when it is wrongly presented as a reason, like
it is in f911 for the invasion of afganistan, it suggests a far more
dangerous problem in the works.
Misrepresenting the deadliest confrontation
since the supposed end of the Cold War www.tenc.net

I am a cold war child who has had nuclear war dreams for 4 decades
of my life, and i'm especially sensitive to anyone who moves towards
that nuclear trigger. Oil can be replaced by another fuel at some
cost... but nuclear war will never be healed... only survived.

[never cry wolf]

8. No, I have not played that

I too am a child of the cold war and I agree with your reasoning, but I believe that oil is a reason. Not because of the profits for Halliburton or the oil conglomerates, that is just a side benefit for the BFEE. It is maybe not the over-riding reason but an important one. Hitler understood the importance of securing the natural resources and it influenced his military strategy greatly.

Peak oil is nearly upon us, if it is not already. Oil is the lifeblood of the industrialized world and imperative for a potential rival. There are alternatives but none at the moment that are economicially viable for a nation wanting to ramp up.

Denial of cheap energy is a strategic and logistic goal of the PNAC creeps in charge of our foreign policy. I am not saying I agree with it by any means, just that it is part of the reasoning of the neo-cons in power.

[sweetheart]

12. Then us cold war kids gotta make good

Unless you're terribly young, you're a cold war baby, and have grown
up with a form of terrorism, that of annihilation sold by "our"
government under the auspices of "security", and the presumption that
nuclear arms and 750 foreign bases make us more secure.

I'm not disputing that oil is a factor. That caspian basin is a
tinderbox.

The most plausible reason for a global thermonuclear war i've ever
encountered, and viable over decades, has been the possibility of a
regional shooting match in the middle east that goes global in a
tit for tat escalation. Now we're so dang close to that i'm deeply
concerned. Once they start shooting, it will be too late.

[Lostnote03]

10. Yep...

.....well stated and thank you!!!

[Junkdrawer]

3. Roll this idea around: The chaos in Iraq was planned...

....the bombing of UN Hdqrs. in Baghdad

....The fiasco at Najaf

....The Abu Graib prison scandal

Some or all of these things and more to justify a never ending US presence in the region. And, if they want to invade Iran, they'll need another pretty hefty terror attack here at home.

Just a thought.

[jacksonian]

5. that's the only sense i can make of Bush foreign policy

they are purposely trying to lead us into a war all time mode that we can't fix.

Add to the Iraq stuff their actions toward N Korea. They want a more dangerous world, it's the only way these things make sense.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Read this from Richard Perle...

Face the Nation - shortly after the invasion. About the same time as "Mission Accomplished":

PERLE: I believe it's important that we help bring stability to Iraq as quickly as possible, and then leave. Leave as soon as we can safely turn Iraq over to the people of Iraq. The longer we're there; I think the greater the danger that opposition to our presence will build.

And it will certainly be encouraged by outside forces, by the Iranians, for example, who will do everything they can to destabilize Iraq as part of their ongoing conflict with the United States.

SCHIEFFER: Well, when you say we should leave as quickly as possible, do you think that can be done in a matter of months? Is it going to take years as some are now saying? What's your estimate if you had to make one?

PERLE: So many people are now dusting off their earlier predictions about everything including how long the war would last. So it's always hazardous to make predictions, but I think a transition could be short, a matter of months. I would hope it would be only a matter of months.

SCHIEFFER: Really?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/21/ftn/main550304.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Now, tell me they didn't know what would happen...

[Disturbed]

7. W's explanation?

Does it make any freakin' sense?

He and the Neo Fascists thought the Iraqi forces would put up more of a fight but now the US is fighting them?

Allowing the Iraqi Army to melt away and not keeping at least the low level officers and enlisted personnel was a huge mistake. Over 400,000 became unemployed. Then removing all Baath Party members from their positions causing even more unemployed. Another huge mistake.
Not hiring Iraqis for jobs of re-construction and allowing foreigners to take their jobs. Another huge mistake. 70% Unemployment and barely any reconstruction made way for the Insurgency.

The Neo Fascists seem powerful but they are a bunch of ideologs that are screw-ups. W is a puppet that hardly knows what is going on. He mouths the simplistic crap for the ignorant and dumbed down to consume.

Amerika is PATHETIC!!!

[madfloridian]

9. Perle wants eternal war....so our children can "sing songs of us."

He does not want us out of there.

[G_j]

11. unless the "new Iraqi government"

is legitimate, of course the US military will feel the need to support it.
Puppet governments always rely on force to maintain power.