A ban on permanent bases in Iraq

September 27, 2006

A few months ago, Tom Engelhardt noted that the “debate” over [tag]permanent[/tag] [tag]U.S.[/tag] [tag]bases[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag] was practically non-existent. After a search of the LexisNexis database, he explained, “American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words ‘permanent,’ ‘bases,’ and ‘Iraq’ should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report.”

With the U.S. slated to build four “super-bases” in Iraq, which many believe will eventually be part of a massive permanent [tag]presence[/tag], a few congressional Dems thought it was time to put the question on the table. According to one House Democrat, GOP lawmakers have been avoiding the issue, but as of this week, they are finally tackling the issue.

Congress is on the verge of barring the construction of permanent bases for U.S. forces in Iraq, a move aimed at quelling concerns in the Arab world that American forces will remain in the war-torn country indefinitely. […]

[T]he massive American bases in Iraq have long fueled speculation that the United States plans to maintain a military presence there, as it does in other parts of the Arab world.

Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar are all home to large U.S. military bases, which have occasionally helped fuel anti-American sentiment in the region. There was also a big U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia until 2003, when, acknowledging the sensitivity of U.S. troops in the home of Islam, the Pentagon moved most of its personnel elsewhere.

Several members of Congress, including Reps. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), have attempted to explicitly prohibit similar arrangements in Iraq.

And on Monday, it all came together.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) pushed hard to get this message into the defense spending bill and finally wore the Republicans down. “I have no illusions that this provision will somehow dramatically change the dynamic of events on the ground in Iraq,” Biden said Tuesday in a statement. “But … this is a message that needs to be proclaimed loudly and regularly and with the stamp of the Congress.”

As Kevin put it, “It’s about time. Good for Biden for proposing this, and good for him again for not pretending that it’s going to seriously change the dynamics in Iraq at this late date. This is the kind of thing we should have been doing three years ago.”

And speaking of Iraq, did you hear about the latest poll of Iraqis?

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year.

The PIPA poll also showed that an overwhelming majority (.pdf) of Iraqis believes that our military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

I’m sure we can now look forward to the RNC talking points arguing that Iraqis want to cut and run from Iraq.

“I’m sure we can now look forward to the RNC talking points arguing that Iraqis want to cut and run from Iraq.” – CB

Well, my response would be that the Iraqis want us out of the way so they can get on with the process of ethnic cleansing we seem to be retarding.

  • Since this is a two-fer, I have two responses:

    1) Didn’t we sort of promise in all sorts of public statements that we weren’t there to stay? Why are we building these permanent bases then?

    2) I don’t like how that report tacks on “and other foreign forces”. While we can certainly ourselves leave, it’s a far different issue to expect “other foreign forces” to do likewise. I wonder what question was actually posed, whether it was simply about whether the US should leave or whether the respondents would like all foreign forces to leave (obviously there will be a high approval to the latter – duh.)

  • Well, my response would be that the Iraqis want us out of the way so they can get on with the process of ethnic cleansing we seem to be retarding.

    I’m not sure of that. Influencing events on the ground is pretty hard to do when you’re cowering behind concrete fortifications for the most part. I’m pretty sure we don’t have much effect on the violence except to create more people to kill (i.e., those who collaborate with us).

  • It be interesting to see the superbases tied to the “embassy” the U.S. is building at the same time. That project is nothing short of a heavily fortified small city. U.S. military presence or no, the Bush administration is insisting that the U.S. have a strong influence on Iraqi affairs.

  • If we are not going to make the four massive “super-bases” permanent the why are we building them? Why are the fiscal hawk Republicans silent? Shouldn’t they be sqwaking about waste, and nation building and foriegn aid, and how the taxpayers deserve better?

    I want the billions back from Bechtel and Haliburton. I want a tax cut and a rebate. I do not want bases built with American money if they are not going to house American troops!

  • “I’m not sure of that. Influencing events on the ground is pretty hard to do when you’re cowering behind concrete fortifications for the most part.” – Mr. Flibble

    Not every soldier and Marine in Iraq is hiding in the Green Zone. Just the generals. Some of them are actually out trying to protect Iraqi lives.

    But as you say, along with members of the opposing sectarian groups, we also add collaborators to the hit lists.

  • >

    Ummm….surely you haven’t forgotten the “Coalition of the Willing”? They don’t just want the US to leave, but also the British, the Poles, the Romanians, the Georgians, the Salvadorans, etc. I think they even want the Moldovans to leave.

  • Any one want to bet that Shrubya will just change the definition of Permanent Base?

    But I wanted to comment on this:

    There was also a big U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia until 2003, when, acknowledging the sensitivity of U.S. troops in the home of Islam, the Pentagon moved most of its personnel elsewhere*.

    Excuse me whilst I scoff myself senseless. Since when has any sane person used the word sensitivity in connection with Don Rumsfeld? It also leaves one to wonder why the Pentagone would come over all touchy-feely for the home of Islam as it lied through its teeth so it could rush pell-mell into the cradle of civilization. Picky? Mais Oui. But since any one with a brain can spot the Admin’s. big lies, it’s kind of fun call out the smaller ones. Here’s what happened: The House of Saud wanted us out for a long time and their pal Shrub said okey doke. Some twit reached up his arse for a reason and came out with Sensitivity. Gah.

    *Yep, to a place called Iraq.

  • Biden is being played for a chump. All the Republicans will do is say that “enduring” bases are OK, but not “permanent” ones. Duh.

    Of course “enduring” will last as long as the oil does, maybe another 50 years.

    The Iraqi poll is great stuff, and should be trumpeted loudly. Ask anyone you meet: Do you want our troops out of Iraq? So do the Iraqis!

    So what’s the holdup? Bring ’em home NOW.

  • Finally. I think I read something Gary Hart wrote about this permanent bases plan close to 3 years ago, and I’ve been sending questions to reporters and politicians about it ever since. The first time I heard someone mention them in a really national forum was Jim Webb on Meet the Press just recently. I sent him money. I just don’t understand the Democratic leadership–why haven’t they mentioned this every time some smartass cable guy says, “well, the Dems don’t have a plan.” Why haven’t they said “well, we sure aren’t going to build bases to stay a hundred years.” Most Americans have no idea about this and if they did, the already majority opposed to the Iraq war would become a supermajority.

  • Some of them are actually out trying to protect Iraqi lives.

    This is actually a pretty important issue to think about. Because if what you’re saying is true, then our presence does have a benefit for Iraqis and there is a moral pressure to remain. But I don’t know of any publicly available military data that I trust that says anything one way or the other as to whether we’re (1) saving lives or (2) making sure those lives we saved at Time 1 continue uninterrupted by automatic weapons to Time 2.

    How much effect can an army with decaying equipment and fighting efficiency have? As the ground forces fall apart in combat readiness, it stands to reason that its operations will decrease and be more and more confined to protecting the areas immediately surrounding the bases.

    I think there’s some reason to think our guys aren’t getting out much. When was the last time we heard about an offensive? The last one I remember is Operation Photo-op–was it earlier this year?–where there was hardly any fighting at all because we publicized it and the bad guys bugged out. Has there been any other major operations lately outside of a few mile radii of their bases?

    (PS–I’m not asking these questions rhetorically; I really don’t know–I just have a hunch that this is the case)

  • “This is actually a pretty important issue to think about. Because if what you’re saying is true, then our presence does have a benefit for Iraqis and there is a moral pressure to remain. But I don’t know of any publicly available military data that I trust that says anything one way or the other as to whether we’re (1) saving lives or (2) making sure those lives we saved at Time 1 continue uninterrupted by automatic weapons to Time 2.” – Mr. Flibble

    All sadly true. I’m not saying the U.S. Military is succeeding in Iraq. I merely say that it is trying, when possible.

    Most of Kurdistan is fairly safe, apparantly 😉

  • “President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are “capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security.”

    OK, and that will be… when?

    I’m sure he’d like to define what the “end” of terrorism would look like?

    Hell, nobody would say we’ve ended terrorism HERE, and we don’t have carbombs going off every day. So I guess he means we’ll be there basically forever.

  • Considering that a huge cause for the attacks on Sept. 11 was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest shrine, it seems that establishing permanent bases in Iraq, home to several of Islam’s other holiest sites, would be begging Islamic militants to attack the U.S. yet again. Building more green zones throughout Iraq has the effect to plopping gaping sores onto the Iraqi and Islamic psyche. These new concrete monoliths will very likely be the cause of new smoldering ruins to mourn over around the world.

  • Your article mentions that the US removed it’s troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003. I would suggest that might have something to do with why the US hasn’t been attacked at home since 9/11, since that is why Bin Laden attacked us to begin with on more than one occasion. Never mind, I seem to recall something to do with ANTHRAX in the mail and that perpetrator is still on the loose too, but no one ever mentions him or them anymore. Maybe that wasn’t really an attack or Vice-Chancellor Cheney, war criminal at large, wouldn’t keep repeating that lie. Funny thing how the anthrax was mailed to the Dem leaders, sort of like targeting Al Jazeera. It sounds like Shrub “cut and run” from Saudi Arabia once he found out he had displeased his old family friends, the Bin Ladens. When did Bush’s War in Iraq come to an end? The media seems to have forgotten about it before this coming election. Aren’t there any missing blondes to fill our newscasts instead of that pesky war the stool sample on the rug in the Oval Office wants us to forget about. On a happier note, my absentee ballot should be in my mailbox today.

  • “Never mind, I seem to recall something to do with ANTHRAX in the mail and that perpetrator is still on the loose too, but no one ever mentions him or them anymore.”

    [tko]

    There was a front page article in the Washington Post a few days ago. It turns out that (surprise) the anthrax used wasn’t weapons grade, just very “clean.” (Good, I hate it when deadly spores are dirty.) This of course means it could have been made by almost any one any where in the world. Which in turn means:

    1. They Feeb has a great excuse for never finding the sicko who did this.
    2. It supports Dicky Chinny’s “No Terrorism in the US Since We Stomped into Iraq,” line of drool.
    3. The Asshat in Chief has a great excuse for pinning the blame on any country that displeases His Royal Wankership. Look out Pakistan, Iran, Venuzuela er…everyone. Actually, this could also be a great excuse to nab any one in the U.S. who doesn’t shut up and snort the Kool Aid. Look out Olbermann, Clinton, Pelosi, er… everyone.

  • “Well, my response would be that the Iraqis want us out of the way so they can get on with the process of ethnic cleansing we seem to be retarding.” –Lance

    Oh yes, Hitler was helping the Poles, helping the Czechs, helping the people of France, just like the Japanese were helping the Manchurians.

    MASSIVE WARCRIMES have been and are being committed.

    • Another pogrom on Al-Fallujah is underway. Two previous pogroms on that town destroyed 50% of its buildings.

    • U.S. destruction of civilian water, power, and sewage in many areas — a major warcrime — has not been repaired.

    • Failure to guard Al Qa-qa released 380 TONS of high-explosives to hostiles, arming the insurgency that is killing our troops with sophisticated IEDs. Thanks, George!

    • Deployment of 20,000 mercenaries, with a total waiver of legal responsibility — a major warcrime — is a direct cause of civil war. Such deployment violates the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989. The death of Strydom outed the practice of hiring deathsquad TERRORISTS as mercenaries in Iraq, to wit:

    “In Iraq, Strydom and Gouws were employed by Erinys International, a security firm based in the United Kingdom. ….

    “Strydom was a member in the Koevoet, Afrikaner for “Crowbar,” an outlaw group that paid bounty for the bodies of blacks seeking independence during the 1980s. The Koevoet terrorized blacks in Namibia and northern South Africa for more than a decade. Hundreds of deaths are attributed to its members.”

    http://tinyurl.com/mlch7

    There are also Serbian terrorists, and others from around the world, deployed as mercenaries — ILLEGALLY.

    That’s just a few mentions of why your suggestion that we’re wearing the white hats is BS, Lance. Bushco is committing major warcrimes — warcrimes which include endangering our own soldiers — and which are FOMENTING the ethnic cleansing that is occuring.

    They’re doing that to PARTITION the country, in total violation of the UN charter.

    “There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There will be three territories.” — Kissinger, early 2004, briefing his Saudi clients

  • “Your article mentions that the US removed it’s troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003.”

    See Syriana. Once the Qatar base ‘became available,’ the US moved the Saudi deployment south into the peninsula.

    “There was also a big U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia until 2003, when, acknowledging the sensitivity of U.S. troops in the home of Islam, the Pentagon moved most of its personnel elsewhere.” — LAT

    Ahem. The movement was necessitated by the refusal of Riyadh to allow U.S. warplanes stationed in Saudi Arabia to be used in the Iraq invasion.

    The LA Times is a fraud. Down with the Chicago Liesangeles Times.

  • Get the f*ck out of Iraq. Now.

    Since there seems to be a consensus among the majority of the *people* of both US and Iraq on the subject (if for different reasons), like Racerex (early), I don’t see what the holdup is. Turn the damned “endurable bases” into orphanages; the Iraqi will need them.

    • Comments are closed.