Raising the ‘permanent bases’ question

June 9, 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. set to build four “super-bases” in Iraq, which many believe will eventually be part of a massive permanent [tag]presence[/tag], maybe it’s time to put the question on the table? According to one House Democrat, GOP lawmakers are avoiding the issue.

[Rep. [tag]Barbara Lee[/tag] (D-Calif.)] introduced an amendment to the latest emergency war spending bill prohibiting the use of funds to build such bases. The House accepted it, and the Senate included the same wording in its version.

However, the provision was dropped by House and Senate conferees reconciling the two versions of the bill.

“Their willingness to abuse the process is amazing,” she said of Republican leaders. “I hope the debate will at least get a debate going on permanent bases.”

Thanks to a bi-partisan deal struck in April, Lee will probably have a chance to at least ask the question. The House is poised to hold a full-day debate on Iraq policy at some point next week, which both parties hope to use to make their case on the future of the war. Several Democrats are anxious to discuss whether the U.S. plans to maintain an [tag]indefinite[/tag] [tag]military[/tag] presence in Iraq, and with any luck, they’ll get some answers.

Lee said in a press release that “[tag]Republicans[/tag] need to go on record as to whether they think we should stay in Iraq permanently.” We’ll see what they say.

They won’t give any useful answer. They’ll say that we’ll stay as long as we need to stay and the rock-solid GOP will listen to the generals and won’t be bound by arbitrary timetables, unlike those whiny-assed titty-baby Democrats who want to see Islam conquer America.

Debate is meaningless unless one has the power to impose sanctions on those using the debate to avoid the issues and score political points. Republicans respect nothing but power.

  • Shouldn’t the debate include the Iraqis?

    Or doesn’t their voice matter?

    If it doesn’t matter… explain to me the bit about bringing democracy to Iraq again.

  • Right now the Iraqi have no Air Force.

    They have practically no logistics capabilities.

    They have no higher command structure above the battalion.

    They have potential enemies on all sides.

    We have to be there in some force for a while to provide support.

    Or we just watch them turn into another Somalia.

    But it would be good to have the debate.

  • I’m with koreyel. The Iraqis are treated like a bunch of kids who have become wards of the state.
    And what if the Iraqi government decides they don’t want a US presence in their country, will we concede?

  • For those of us who have been convinced from the beginning that the invasion of Iraq was the first step in establishing control over the supply of oil in the mideast, this should be very interesting indeed. And I’m betting we’ll get no satisfactory answers. One way or another, our military presence is permanent.

    I’ve always been amused by the comment Bush used to make, that the oil in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. It shows how really stupid this man is, that he doesn’t understand himself why we’re there. It’s exactly the opposite. It already belonged to the people of Iraq under Saddam. That’s why we went there. To take it away from them, de-nationalize their oil industry, so that it would come under American capitalistic control.

    We’re not spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Our objective is to spread American capitalism around the world, so our corporations can become ever larger, ever more powerful, ever richer and ever more profitable.

  • “Republicans need to go on record as to whether they think we should stay in Iraq permanently.”

    Sorry, can’t comment on matters of national security.

  • The Pentagon started with 14 permanent bases, and now has apparently revised the plan to 4 ‘super-bases’. That’s an improvement, I guess, but it’s still far from certain what the final outcome will be. For all we know the other 10 will simply be designated as satellites of the major ones and go rolling merrily along unchanged, as well.

    The neocons assumed that we’d have a relatively stable, effective and compliant puppet government in place by now who would insist that U.S. troops stay indefinitely. The problem is that the situation turned out to be much more complicated than they figured.

    Nobody anticipated the endurance and expansion of a number of major players, especially the militia armies which are in no way under the control of either the U.S. or the Iraqi government. Plus the inconvenient fact that the Iraqis actually believe the propaganda the U.S. has been telling them about being free to make their own decisions now, and they will expect their wishes to be honored.

    Especially when they tell King George that they want the U.S. troops out of their country. All of them. Now.

    Even the biggest bases with unlimited air support can’t survive forever if they’re surrounded by an entire hostile nation united in the desire to see them gone. Once the rationale for their presence is finally exhausted, the U.S. miltary will either have to leave or be at last exposed as the permanent occupiers they’ve always denied being.

    And that will open up a whole new can of worms that could make the current tragedy look like a picnic by comparison.

    Stay tuned. The big show hasn’t even started yet.

  • It makes strategic sense to have at least one base in Iraq. Remember that Turkey was responsible for delaying our invasion of Iraq for several weeks because the Turkish gov’t would not allow us to launch our attack against northern Iraq from Turkey. I imagine Saddam was quite happy for the extra time to ship his WMDs to Syria.

  • “I imagine Saddam was quite happy for the extra time to ship his WMDs to Syria.” – Fallenwoman

    And you would think that after hiding his airforce in Iran during the Gulf War he would have learned something…

    … you don’t get it back!

    The Shia Baathists in Syria hate the Sunni Baathists in Iraq. I doubt this every happened.

  • Remember that Turkey was responsible for delaying our invasion of Iraq for several weeks because the Turkish gov’t would not allow us to launch our attack against northern Iraq from Turkey.

    How dare they act like a sovereign state with their own concerns rather than a puppet state for us! Thank god you called them on it.

    Back in the good ol days of GHW Bush, those Turks played along and helped out. . . hey. . . wait a sec. . . you dont think that is because Bush the Lesser couldn’t hold pappy’s jock when it comes to negotiating, building a coalition, and actually getting along with other world leaders do you? (and I say this not as a fan of 41 – I voted against him every change I had).

    And come to think of it, why did we predicate an attack – actually stand on the threshhold of implementation — without knowing if all of the needed pieces were in place? We surely aren’t that incompetent, but. . . that only leaves. . .um, arrogance as a possible explanation?

    Wow. I wish you hadn’t brought this up, Fallen. I was so on board but now it just seems our leadership looks bad. I’m going back to bed.

  • Here’s an apropos quote, from Letters to the Editor in today’s “Bellingham [WA] Herald”.

    In June 1944, George Kennan spent two days in Baghdad on his way to his new post of minister-counselor in Moscow under U.S. Ambassador Averell Harriman. In his diary, he wrote about the possibility of the Americans taking on some of the responsibilities of the British and extending our influence in the region.

    He writes, “Are we willing to bear this responsibility? I know – and every realistic American knows – that we are not. Our government is technically incapable of conceiving and promulgating a long-term consistent policy toward areas remote from its own territory. Our actions in the field of foreign affairs are the convulsive reactions of politicians to an internal political life dominated by vocal minorities” (Memoirs: 1925-1950).

    In 2006, our government still looks at foreign policy as subservient to domestic issues and these domestic issues are dominated by vocal minorities.

    Now we have a war in Iraq, which I believe is promoted by Christian fundamentalists and corporate power brokers so they can make money and spread their right-wing fanaticism around the world in the guise of fighting a war on terror. Of course, the gutless politicians go right along with it.

    Not much has changed in U.S. foreign policy in the last 60 years.

  • Ah yes, the WMDs are in Syria, under the Dead Sea, and on Monster Island. And we know this to be true, how?

  • “Ah yes, the WMDs are in Syria, under the Dead Sea, and on Monster Island. And we know this to be true, how?” – 2Manchu

    Syrian exiles, Dead Seaian exiles, Monster Islanders.

    As well as we know there are Al Qaeda harbored in Iran because Iranian exiles tell us that.

    And Al Qaeda are harbored in Somalia because Somalian warlords tell us that.

    It’s called Human Intelligence. You know, like the kind that told us there were mobile chemical warfare labs in Iraq!

    • Comments are closed.