Reply
Tue 23 Mar, 2004 10:15 am
Another top agenda item goal of the US invastion of Iraq.---BBB
14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
By Christine Spolar
Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent
March 23, 2004
BAGHDAD -- From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.
Last year, as troops poured over the Kuwait border to invade Iraq, the U.S. military set up at least 120 forward operating bases. Then came hundreds of expeditionary and temporary bases that were to last between six months and a year for tactical operations while providing soldiers with such comforts as e-mail and Internet access.
Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.
As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.
"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality.
"This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East," Kimmitt said. "[But] the engineering vision is well ahead of the policy vision. What the engineers are saying now is: Let's not be behind the policy decision. Let's make this place ready so we can address policy options."
To that end, the U.S. plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk.
There also are plans to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north.
Dollar figures have not been released. The Defense Department plans to build the bases under its own contracts separate from the State Department and its Embassy in Baghdad.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the head of coalition forces in Iraq, recently outlined a plan that would slice the current Coalition Provisional Authority into pieces after sovereignty is returned to Iraqis at the end of June.
The U.S. Embassy would absorb some coalition workers as Embassy personnel; the Defense Department would take others. Its workers would direct most of the major contracts connected to the $18 billion allocated for Iraq reconstruction, military planners said.
The Program Management Office, the agency that has been doling out the cash, will remain under the Defense Department.
"It was a significant win," one military planner said. "In terms of controlling the money, Defense is in control."
NEWSFLASH: The US has military bases all over the world.
Indeed, and now the opportunity for new ones.
Craven de Kere wrote:Indeed, and now the opportunity for new ones.
And I suppose we should think that's a bad thing.
I don't consider it a bad thing in and of itself. But I think it's an unwise move that will further taint our war in the realm of international opinion.
I think establishing a footprint there is a big reason for the invasion and while it doesn't bother me too much I think others will have a legitimate gripe about it.
To me it represents unwise unsubtlety.
Craven de Kere wrote:I don't consider it a bad thing in and of itself. But I think it's an unwise move that will further taint our war in the realm of international opinion.
I think establishing a footprint there is a big reason for the invasion and while it doesn't bother me too much I think others will have a legitimate gripe about it.
To me it represents unwise unsubtlety.
I wonder how much we should allow the whims of international opinion and the risk of griping (legitimate or otherwise) to dissuade us from taking what actions we deem to be in our best interests.
If it were not a legitimate gripe I'd not mind much. But IMO, if establishing a footprint was partial motivation for war, many would have a very legitimate gripe.
If it were my call, I'd avoid making it look like this is the case (but I actually think this is the case).
Well, we have to defend our oil fields and such, don't we.
To the extent that the current adminstration claims it intends to give Iraq both democracy and sovereignty, it seems a very unwise move. Should the Iraquis, with their newly formed government, and their sovereignty, tell us to get the hell out, we'd be leaving behind billions of taxpayer dollars (not that the Shrub ever gave two sh*ts about giving away other people's money), or we'd defy Iraqi sovereignty, with all of the attendant dangers. It's a stupid move, no matter how you look at it. We have bases all over the world, because we have agreements with the governments of the nations in which they are located. That doesn't apply in this case.
Quote:If it were not a legitimate gripe I'd not mind much. But IMO, if establishing a footprint was partial motivation for war, many would have a very legitimate gripe.
Why? The way I see it, Saddam had to go. If you take that as a given--and clearly the administration did--then you either plan to have a friendly government after the fact or a hostile one. Clearly they aren't planning for a hostile one, and just as clearly we often have agreements including US military bases on our allies' and friends' soil. The only real question to me is why anyone would think we wouldn't have permanent bases there.
As for internationl griping, Clinton and his administration concerned themselves with little else, and it seems that doing so made us no more safe and no less disliked by those who would do us harm.
Setanta wrote:To the extent that the current adminstration claims it intends to give Iraq both democracy and sovereignty, it seems a very unwise move. Should the Iraquis, with their newly formed government, and their sovereignty, tell us to get the hell out, we'd be leaving behind billions of taxpayer dollars (not that the Shrub ever gave two sh*ts about giving away other people's money), or we'd defy Iraqi sovereignty, with all of the attendant dangers. It's a stupid move, no matter how you look at it. We have bases all over the world, because we have agreements with the governments of the nations in which they are located. That doesn't apply in this case.
Let's be clear what we're talking about here...
Quote:Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years.
BBB
It would be wise to remember the history of the Roman Empire as well as other failed empires. My memory may be faulty, but I recall that a major factor in their collapse was too wide-spread military strongholds (bases) to manage and too expensive to maintain. I think the latter may be something the US should be concerned about. We've been closing bases at home but maintaining and adding to bases abroad. We can't afford it much longer as the Soviet Empire learned.
BBB
Scrat wrote:
The only real question to me is why anyone would think we wouldn't have permanent bases there.
Do you feel the same about other nations having bases in the US, should it be a given?
We may be in Iraq for another two years, but i consider that a long shot. Building airfields which can handle modern jets has nothing to do with building a temporary facility, either. The soviets designed jets to land on "unimproved" strips, we don't. Our jets need hard pan to land on, and building an air base is expensive. A reasonable consideration of the likely near-term political situation in Iraq makes any notion of permanence problematic. The Kurds are likely our friends, most of them. The Sunnis cannot be counted on at all in that regard--they had everything to lose with the fall of Hussein, and they've lost it all. The Shiites are a majority in the truest meaning--they outnumber Kurds and Sunnis combined. They may have some good will toward us, but i doubt that they have very much. They continue to nurse a justifiable grudge over being left in the lurch in their failed uprising against Hussein in 1991, which they claim, with good reason, Bush the elder tacitly encouraged. Sistani has demonstrated a canny political sense of timing, and he is no friend of the United States. Either we will be out of there PDQ, or we will face the inevitable hostility of a nation which see us as occupiers who have reneged on a promise of independence and sovereignty.
Setanta wrote:We may be in Iraq for another two years, but i consider that a long shot.
I agree, and see the number 14 as an indicator of short term. How many translate into long term is anyone's guess.
I suspect that long term is an adminitration goal, but that doesn't depend on our wishes.
According to the Chicago Tribune story the US plans to operate out of existing Iraqi military bases in, among other cities, Mosul, Kirkuk, areas near al-Nasiriyah, and areas between Irbil and Kirkuk. These are all located near oil fields a/o have refineries. I wonder which of these "translate into long term," as de Kere conjectures, hmmm . . .
Could Guantanamo be a model of a few US bases in Iraq?
Quote:"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."
Tempest in a teapot. They're probably places where soldiers can go to take a shower and wash their clothing, maintain their vehicles and weapons, and eat and sleep, without having to constantly fend off car bomb attacks.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace