Permanent Bases in Iraq???

[Esse Quam Videri]

Who can help me out??? As I am about to head out for a Thanksgiving dinner with repug family members I need to know. Randi Rhodes is always referring to some 19?? permanent bases that we are currently building in Iraq. I have not seen any mention of these in the MSM. Does anyone have info on these? Randi's position (and the one I believe) is that bush has no plans to withdraw but to have a major presence in the region for years. Want to use this as a talking point at dinner.

[mmonk]

1. Permanent bases were the intent all along.

That is why there is no exit strategy. The neocons are into empire building. I, however, thought it was 14 but I haven't been keeping my eye on that part.

[Esse Quam Videri]

2. Well you've heard about them also

but where can I find info?

[mmonk]

6. I have a file on all their

activities, but I'll have to go over them to determine links I can give you. It might be quicker if you use google.

[baldguy]

3. Yep. And the largest US Embassy is the world.

The Bushies are preparing to stay. For a very, VERY long time.

links on edit:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110706,00.html

[achtung_circus]

4. Statrt here:

>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm>

globalsecuirty is a great resource for all things even remotely military.

This article names the bases.

Something I have been meaning to do is to use google earth to find as many as I can. There is one on the southeast edge of Tikrit, on the river turned over to Iraqi forces in the last couple of weeks. There is one in the desert northwest of Mosul.

[johnaries]

5. I had always heard 14, which is proof that we are following the

PNAC plan. I'm doing a Google search. I'll post some of the links after i review them a little.

[leftchick]

7. Here ya go....

A Permanent Presence

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.

<snip>

Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan.

"People need to get realistic and think in terms of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic stability in the region is reached," Dewey Clarridge, the CIA's former chief of Arab operations (and Iran-contra point man), told the Sun.

The fabled "exit strategy" may be not to exit. Thomas Donnelly, a defense specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, said the new communication system resembles those built in West Germany and the Balkans, places where American troops remain today. "The operational advantages of US bases in Iraq should be obvious for other power-projection missions in the region," Donnelly wrote in an AEI policy paper.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2132

[Esse Quam Videri]

9. Thanks for the link

Thank God its only 14 and not 19 like I thought :sarcasm:

[achtung_circus]

8. More here, including Sat images.

<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm>

[Esse Quam Videri]

11. Great information

Would you guys consider this the "periphery" that Rep. Murtha was talking about?

from the report

By May 2005 the Washington Post reported that plans called for consolidating American troops in Iraq into four large air bases: Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. Eventually, US units would be concentrated at these four fortified strategic hubs, from which they could provide logistical support and emergency combat assistance. Each base would support a brigade combat team, along with aviation and other support personnel.

Initially referred to as "enduring bases" in 2004, these four bases were redesignated as "Contingency Operating Bases" in February 2005. The consolidation plan entails construction of long-lasting facilities, such as barracks and offices built of concrete blocks, rather than the metal trailers and buildings that are found at the larger US bases. The buildings are designed to withstand direct mortar strikes. Initial funding was provided in the $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill approved by Congress in May 2005.

[johnaries]

22. Considering they are well within the interior of Iraq, I doubt

you could that the "periphery".

The periphery and over the horizon suggests either along the border or just outside it.

Since he also pointed out the need to secure the borders, I would infer he means bases on or outside the borders.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. The Washington Post article that refers to (the MSM mention for the OP)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611_pf.html

May 21st, 2005. Includes quotes from named Army engineers.

[johnaries]

10. Here's a couple of good links,

including one talking about the budgeting:
http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=5550
And one with a map the locations of and info on 12 of the 14:
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

edit: here's an EXCELLENT article:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/23755/

edit: here's a treasure trove of links:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdrawalindex.htm#bases

[leftchick]

20. the alternet article is great

I had not seen it before...

<snip>

Eric Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies put it this way: "These bases are made out of concrete. My house is made of concrete, and I consider my house to be pretty permanent." And Larry Diamond, Hoover fellow and former advisor to Paul Bremer, has bluntly declared that the bases are permanent. This past February, he told a UCLA audience: "e could declare ... that we have no permanent military designs on Iraq and we will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. This one statement would do an enormous amount to undermine the suspicion that we have permanent imperial intentions in Iraq. We aren't going to do that. And the reason we're not going to do that is because we are building permanent military bases in Iraq."

Moreover, the fine print of an $82 billion appropriations bill passed by Congress in May reads: "This proposal will allow the Army to provide temporary facilities, and in some very limited cases, permanent facilities… These facilities include barracks, administrative space, vehicle maintenance facilities, aviation facilities, mobilization-demobilization barracks, and community support facilities."

Of course, the more one probes on these bases, the more definitions become tenuous. It's only in the fog of war that that the words "permanent," "enduring," and "contingent," begin to mean the same thing. These new terms are intentionally vague, blurring the reality of what's really happening: the execution of a long-term plan to have a permanent military presence in Iraq.

[Esse Quam Videri]

24. I like how this is worded

These facilities include barracks, administrative space, vehicle maintenance facilities, aviation facilities, mobilization-demobilization barracks, and community support facilities."

Why don't they just say BASES

[leftchick]

27. exactly

why not indeed. This also explains why bush NEVER says the US will have an exit strategy. Because there will NEVER be an exit as far as they are concerned. And that has been the PNAC plan from the beginning.

[AngryAmish]

12. Why bother eating with Rethugs?

I know they may be family, but they want you dead. Take it easy and order a pizza.

[Esse Quam Videri]

13. Believe me if my Mom wasn't putting

the dinner together I probably wouldn't go.

[johnaries]

14. I've added some more to #10 you should check out. n/t

[Esse Quam Videri]

15. Much appreciated

[johnaries]

17. Good luck!

:hi:

[Wetzelbill]

16. yes, everybody has given you some info

the idea is that Neo-Cons in their bid to reform and modernize Islam, want to fight theater wars in the Middle East. With each war in the theater and each conquest they promoted democracy, open up the economies to foreign investment and privatization and to set up permanent military bases there and use our military for constabulary duties. They want permanent bases to look out for our own interests their and create a democratic government that is also a client regime of the United States. The intention was to never leave Iraq fully and now that we have privatized the economy and have business interests we aren't going to leave. Especially not when Bush is in office, all of this talk about "making for the exits" is just status quo talk, Dems in Washington make status quo criticisms, for the most part. We aren't leaving. We may draw down troops somewhat simply for the midterm elections, but Neo-Cons have no intention to abandon the idea of a permanent military presence there. Don't let anybody saying otherwise fool you, they'll hold on to that idea until the bitter end. In fact, Neo-Cons do not even try to hide this. They openly advocate staying there permanently. It's no secret. :)

[johnaries]

18. Yep! For some background on the WHY we're doing it,

here's some good articles including some by our own Will Pitt:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105W.shtml
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[Wetzelbill]

26. Some more background, mostly on Straussianism

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-1542....
http://www.iht.com/articles/96307.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...

[johnaries]

29. Is it Wolfowitz who is an actual student of Strausisanism?

Anyway, Bushco certainly follows his teachings.

[Wetzelbill]

39. Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle

Leo Strauss was a philosopher. He's apolitical, but he has a different interpretation of Plato. He believes that Thrasymachus, in Plato's Republic, is the "real" voice and not Socrates. Thrasymachus believed that power was what made justice. That your role in society was defined by a power elite, not by merit. Justice was power and living in accordance to how much or how little you had. Prescient, isn't it? :)

Religion, according to Strauss and Neo-Cons- is useful as a political weapon, it narcotizes the masses. So a politician who uses religion properly is able to garner support and use that for their benefit, whether they or their inner circle is sincere about it. They also believe that politicians are necessary, but the real power is behind the scenes whispering in the politicians ears and essentially making their decisions for them. So in this case, it is beneficial to get a dim-witted, malleable politician and use them as the public face for the real movers and shakers behind the scenes. Sound familiar? :) Oh, and Bill Kristol used to by the Chief of Staff of that other dim-witted, malleable prominent politician of recent memory, Dan Quayle.

So there is a pattern here. :)

[Esse Quam Videri]

19. Except the damn "librul" media doesn't

say shit about this!!!!

[Wetzelbill]

25. they are indoctrined

Bush starts talking about promoting democracy and freedom and these clowns try to compare him to Woodrow Wilson, as if it's an altruism. The problem is the media, especially the Washington crowd, they have become too insulated. They know little more than cocktail parties and the regurgitation of something they heard some guy say on Hardball or something. They don't know anything about what it's like to live out in a world where somebody just lost their factory job, or their kid has just been shipped to Iraq or they just lost their student loans, food stamps etc. Journalists are comfortable in their positions and they tend to refuse to rock the boat. Many fancy themselves part of the political class and not really part of the fourth estate. They have become part of the problem in Washington, being buddies with politicos, just as much so if not more than politicians themselves. Even so-called "Liberal" commentators jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon and overlooked obvious signs that WMDs didn't exist. It's ridiculous.

[globalvillage]

21. Sen Kerry talked about them in the first debate

KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

And 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.

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.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

[Esse Quam Videri]

23. OK and what did the media do with that bit of information?

Or what are they doing now that there is serious discussion about pulling some or all of our troops out? If just one of these MSM people would say "well what about these 14 bases we just built? Are we going to turn these over to the Iraqis?" The info you guys have just given to me has my jaw on the floor. It's just unbelievable!!

[leftchick]

30. nothing

surprised? I am not.

[globalvillage]

31. Except for the few sources we can count on

Not much. It was mentioned as in a very good Boston Globe endorsement of Sen Kerry last year, but it wasn't really picked up on. Too complex an issue for CNN?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/10/17/kerry_for_president/

Here's a good article from the CS Monitor from before the election that was referenced in the previously posted story in The Nation

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0119-23.htm

Sen Kerry repeated this in June of this year before bush*'s Iraq 'speech'. He has repeated this since.

“So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq, and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696

I'm sure some of our other Dem leaders have addressed this issue as well. Here's a quote from Gen Clark.

In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623_pf.html

It's not like we're not saying it.

edit from Teddy
He said Bush should send a signal that he has a "genuine exit strategy" by clearly stating that the United States will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq and by bringing home at least 12,000 troops immediately after the elections.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/28/kennedy_calls_on_us_to_begin_troop_pullout/

[tocqueville]

32. there is a basic flaw in all this : the Iraqi government

the plan was to put in place a pro-american government (read a a pro-neocon government). It succeeded partly. But there are not warranties for the future, even in the short term that it is going to be so. After a US departure, which is a matter of time, there probably will be a terrible fight for power, including all factions (even among the Shiites).

This will probably result in a Shiite overtake and maybe a Kurdish secession. Those guys are going to tell the US to get the f... of Iraq. So the probable results is that whoever is in power will take over brand new US bases, built with taxpayer money (or maybe oil money). So what is the US suppose to do ? fight for the bases. Not likely...

[Esse Quam Videri]

34. Well this would fall in line

with everything else this corrupt admin has done. Everything they try to do goes to shit. Unfortunately they are spending our children's money to try to advance their corrupt and evil cause. I say let the Iraqis take over the bases and tell us to get the hell out

[Clara T]

33. The bases are on the energy corridor

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.

But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

Click here for more details about the bases identified above


http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

[Esse Quam Videri]

36. Thanks for the link. Very interesting locals for these

bases. Oh, and welcome to DU:hi:

[Clara T]

40. More info on the bases

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases_text.htm

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases? Source: GlobalSecurity.org

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 “enduring” bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

1) Green Zone (Baghdad)

The Green Zone in central Baghdad includes the main palaces of former President Saddam Hussein. The area at one time housed the Coalition Provisional Authority; it still houses the offices of major U.S. consulting companies and the temporary U.S. embassy facilities.

2) Camp Anaconda (Balad Airbase)

Camp Anaconda is a large U.S. logistical base near Balad. The camp is spread over 15 square miles and is being constructed to accommodate 20,000 soldiers.

3) Camp Taji (Taji)

Camp Taji, former Iraqi Republican Guard “military city,“ is now a huge U.S. base equipped with a Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut on the premises.

4) Camp Falcon-Al-Sarq (Baghdad)

In late September 2003, the 439th Engineering Battalion delivered over 100,000 tons of gravel and is assisting with building roads, walls, guard towers, and buildings for Camp Falcon. Camp Falcon is planned to house 5,000 soldiers.

5) Post Freedom (Mosul)

Saddam Hussein's former palace in Mosul is currently home to the 101st Airborne Division.

6) Camp Victory- Al Nasr (Baghdad Airfield)

Camp Victory is a U.S. Army base situated on airport grounds about 5 kilometers from Baghdad International Airport. The base can house up to 14,000 troops. Al Faw Palace on Camp Victory is surrounded by a man-made lake and serves as an unofficial conference center for the Army.

7) Camp Marez (Mosul Airfield)

Located at an airfield southwest of Mosul, Camp Marez has a tent dining capacity for 500. In December 2004, a suicide bomber killed himself and 13 U.S. soldiers at the base’s dining tent.

[The2ndWheel]

35. Project for the New American Century

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Go here and read their entire 90-some page policy paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Here are some quotes from that paper.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_pnac_quotes.html

"Indeed, 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."

And everyone's favorite quote:

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

They wrote this in 1997, by the way.

http://www.newgreatgame.com/excerpts.htm

And here's a fun little interactive map.

[Esse Quam Videri]

37. And of course Pearl Harbor turned

out to be 9/11. OK I promise to ready the PNAC policy paper. It seems all of this information is out there but no one in the MSM dares to touch it.

[Stephanie]

38. search "14 enduring bases" and you will find it

we are never actually leaving Iraq