0
   

US Priorities in Iraq

 
 
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 10:04 am
Our 'embassy' belies any thoughts that we will be leaving Iraq anytime soon. And it is an embarassment and insult to the Iraqis, none of whom are being employed to build it, who don't have water or electricty regularly, who didn't get paid for the land.

Quote:
Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by the London Times / UK

In the Chaos of Iraq, One Project is on Target: a Giant US Embassy

by Daniel McGrory

The question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?

Irritation grows as residents deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch the massive US Embassy they call "George W's palace" rising from the banks of the Tigris.

Building work at the 104-acre complex, known locally as 'George W's palace', is supposed to be secret, but it is impossible to disguise the cranes dominating the Baghdad skyline

In the pavement cafés, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built. They are not impressed by the architects' claims that the diplomatic outpost will be visible from space and cover an area that is larger than the Vatican city


It is a testament to the level of waste and corruption that none of our other projects - water, electricity, oil, health, security for the Iraqi people - is close to budget, on time, or operating at pre-war levels. It shows that our concern is not for the Iraqi people's health and security, but for our own health and security. We are little more than invaders.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 416 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 10:56 am
Signs of a long US stay ahead

By Charles J. Hanley

March 26, 2006 -- BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq -- The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that's now the home of as many as 120 US helicopters, a ''heli-park" as good as any back in the States.

http://mathaba.net/news/map/IQ197.jpg

At another giant base, Asad in Iraq's western desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of bustling American town, with a Burger King and Pizza Hut, a car dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations, and young bikers clogging the roads.

At a third hub down south, Tallil, they're planning a new mess hall, one that will seat 6,000 hungry airmen and soldiers for chow.

Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.

''I think we'll be here forever," said the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

The Iraqi people suspect the same. Strong majorities tell pollsters they would like to see a timetable for US troops to leave, but believe Washington plans to keep military bases in their country.

The question of America's future in Iraq looms larger as the US military enters the fourth year of its war here. On Tuesday, President Bush said the decision of when to remove US troops rests with ''future presidents and future governments in Iraq."

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, interim prime minister, has said he opposes permanent foreign bases. A wide range of American opinion is against them, as well. Such bases would be a ''stupid" provocation, said General Anthony Zinni, former US Mideast commander and a critic of the original invasion.

But events, in explosive situations like Iraq's, can turn ''no" into ''maybe" and even ''yes."

The Shi'ite Muslims, ascendant in Baghdad, might decide they need long-term US protection against insurgent Sunni Muslims. Washington might take the political risks to gain a strategic edge -- in its confrontation with next-door Iran, for example.

The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other US officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other American bases abroad, is different from ''permanent," and the official US position is carefully worded.

Lieutenant Commander Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman on international security, said it would be ''inappropriate" to discuss future basing until a new Iraqi government is in place, expected in the coming weeks.

Less formally, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about ''permanent duty stations" by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was ''an interesting question." He said it would have to be raised by the incoming Baghdad government, if ''they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time."

In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. ''If they aren't planning for bases, they ought to say so," she said. ''I would expect to hear 'No bases.' "

Right now what is heard is the pouring of concrete.

For 2005-06, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for US military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime.

They have already pulled out of 34 of the 110 bases they were holding last March, said Major Lee English of the US command's Base Working Group, planning the consolidation.

''The coalition forces are moving outside the cities while continuing to provide security support to the Iraqi security forces," English said.

The move away from cities, perhaps eventually accompanied by US force reductions, will lower the profile of American troops, frequent targets of roadside bombs on city streets. Officers at Asad Air Base, 10 desert miles from the nearest town, say it hasn't been hit by insurgent mortar or rocket fire since October.

Asad will become even more isolated. The proposed 2006 supplemental budget for Iraq operations would provide $7.4 million to extend the no man's land and build new security fencing around the base, which at 19 square miles is so large that many assigned there take the Yellow or Blue bus routes to get around the base, or buy bicycles at a PX jammed with customers.

The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield lighting, air traffic control systems, and upgrades allowing Asad to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid -- a typical sign of a long-term base.

At Tallil, besides the new $14 million dining facility, Ali Air Base is to get, for $22 million, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers, and a moat -- in military parlance, a ''vehicle entrapment ditch with berm."

Here at Balad, the former Iraqi Air Force academy 40 miles north of Baghdad, the two 12,000-foot runways have become the logistics hub for all US military operations in Iraq, and major upgrades began last year.

Army engineers say 31,000 truckloads of sand and gravel fed nine concrete-mixing plants on Balad, as contractors laid a $16 million ramp to park the Air Force's huge C-5 cargo planes; an $18 million ramp for workhorse C-130 transports; and the vast, $28 million main helicopter ramp, the length of 13 football fields, filled with attack, transport, and reconnaissance helicopters.

Turkish builders are pouring tons more concrete for a fourth ramp beside the runways, for medical-evacuation and other aircraft on alert. And $25 million was approved for other ''pavement projects," from a special road for munitions trucks to a compound for special forces.

The chief Air Force engineer here, Lieutenant Colonel Scott Hoover, is also overseeing two crucial projects to add to Balad's longevity: equipping the two runways with new permanent lighting, and replacing a weak 3,500-foot section of one runway.

Once that's fixed, ''we're good for as long as we need to run it," Hoover said. Ten years? he was asked. ''I'd say so."

Away from the flight lines, among traffic jams and freshly planted palms, life improves on 14-square-mile Balad for its estimated 25,000 personnel, including several thousand American and other civilians.

They've inherited an Olympic-sized pool and a chandeliered cinema from the Iraqis. They can order their favorite Baskin-Robbins flavor at ice cream counters in five dining halls, and cut-rate Fords, Chevys, or Harley-Davidsons, for delivery at home, at a PX-run ''dealership." On one recent evening, not far from a big 24-hour gym, airmen hustled up and down two full-length, lighted outdoor basketball courts as F-16 fighters thundered overhead.

''Balad's a fantastic base," Brigadier General Frank Gorenc, the Air Force's tactical commander in Iraq, said at his headquarters here.

Could it host a long-term US presence?

''Eventually it could," said Gorenc, commander of the 332d Air Expeditionary Wing. ''But there's no commitment to any of the bases we operate, until somebody tells me that."

In the counterinsurgency fight, Balad's central location enables strike aircraft to reach targets in minutes. And in the broader context of reinforcing the US presence in the oil-rich Mideast, Iraq bases are preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, said a longtime defense analyst.

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=531628
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 11:04 am
Bushie's embassy in Iraq is nothing compared to the one he plans to build in Iran.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 01:38 pm
And I'm sure Blueflame1 has the blueprints to prove it, right? Please tell me I'm right. Please?? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 01:49 pm
The frightening, frustrating thing is that this has all been done before-- from the obfuscations allowing involvement to the procuring and propping up of an unstable illegitimate client state to the insane self delusion that what is in America's interest perforce must be in the best interests of those raised in a completely different and utterly alien culture-- and it was done at the cost of 50,000 American lives in a little place called Vietnam.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 11:08 am
Quote:
Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) that would require the Bush administration not to use any appropriated funds for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. The amendment also called for the U.S. not exercise control over Iraqi oil. Biden's amendment reads as follows:

To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that similarly stated no funds should be used for permanent base construction.

Congress has now spoken with a clear and unambiguous voice a time when there are troubling signs that the administration wants to make the U.S. presence permanent in Iraq. For example, the administration is currently constructing a $592 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad that spans the size of 80 football fields.

Will this be yet another law that the administration chooses to ignore?

UPDATE: Atrios believes Bush won't listen.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/04/senate-speaks-no-permanent-bases-in-iraq/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 11:18 am
Bush will ignore this law. He will issue a signing statement claiming that the Congress doesn't have the right to decide whether or not we can build permanent bases in Iraq, because this falls under his jurisdiction as the head of the Unitary Executive Branch and as CIC.

Republicans in Congress passed this law, because it allows them to say that they they did. They know the President isn't going to follow it, they don't expect him to, and they don't even want him to in many cases; it's all a part of the collusion between the Executive Branch and Republicans in Congress to place Party above Nation. And pander to voters at the same time.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I know that at least some Republicans aren't too happy with being ignored by the prez.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 03:19 pm
They are in control of the funds, they could simply stop funding everything bush wants until he gets the message that there are actually three branches of government. But I doubt they do it or anything else about it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 May, 2006 03:35 pm
That would involve putting principles above party, and you can bet that's not going to happen in Republican-controlled Washington.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US Priorities in Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 06:35:44