U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq

[edward]

According to recent news reports, the U.S. military is planning on a very long stay in Iraq.

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

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 up to 120 U.S. helicopters, a "heli-park" as good as any back in the States.

At another giant base, al-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, Pizza Hut and 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," the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base.

According to my local paper that 6000 seat dining facility is costing $14 million and much of the concrete mentioned was poured by Turkish? workers. HI HO Haliburton.

This war is about oil, it has always been about oil, and there is no way that our troops will be leaving until we get the oil.

It seems the administration had this planned all along. They knew we were going to have permanent troops in Iraq. Talk about conniving liars.

Army and Air Force engineers, with little notice, have worked to give U.S. commanders solid installations in Iraq, and to give policymakers options. From the start, in 2003, the first Army engineers rolling into Balad took the long view, laying out a 10-year plan envisioning a move from tents to today's living quarters in air-conditioned trailers, to concrete-and-brick barracks by 2008.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Future_Bases.html

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 U.S. military operations in Iraq, and major upgrades began last year.

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.

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/03/21/news/news12032106.txt

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did you have any doubt that the US was going to set up permanent bases? There are bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea still.

 

[Hurkyl]

And has bases in something like 127 other countries as well, according to a quick google search. I cannot see how the construction of a base in Iraq can justify any of the OP's opinions.

 

[Gokul43201]

This war is about oil, it has always been about oil, and there is no way that our troops will be leaving until we get the oil.

I don't see any support for this opinion in the rest of the post. Based on all the evidence you present, wouldn't it be easier to support the claim the this war is all about establishing a military base in the heart of the Middle East (to supplement the then impending pull-out from Saudi Arabia) ?

 

[edward]

I don't see any support for this opinion in the rest of the post. Based on all the evidence you present, wouldn't it be easier to support the claim the this war is all about establishing a military base in the heart of the Middle East (to supplement the then impending pull-out from Saudi Arabia) ?

We never establish military bases anywhere unless there is an alterior motive. The motive in this case is oil. Sorry I din't have the time to expand on what was in the OP link. It does appear that a long term base (bases) was the motive. My problem is the fact that the American public was not informed of this.

 

[edward]

Did you have any doubt that the US was going to set up permanent bases? There are bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea still.

Yes and those bases were established after long hard wars where there was an obvious enemy nearby. My point was that none of this permanent base building was mentioned previous to the invasion of Iraq.

We were told by the Adminitration that it was to be a "quick in quick out" venture. Yet from the beginning the Army corp of engineers had plans to go from tents to trailers to permanent brick and concrete buildings by 2008

And all of this was plannned before there were any insergent actions which might have been expected to prolong the war, so that is not a ligitimate excuse. Yet it will be used.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all a very well planned and executed lie. Can anyone show me a link to where the administration even mentioned long term occupation, before the invasion??

Not hardly, yet acording to the link in the OP the plans were already drawn.

 

[russ_watters]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all a very well planned and executed lie. Can anyone show me a link to where the administration even mentioned long term occupation, before the invasion??

Not hardly, yet acording to the link in the OP the plans were already drawn.

That's logically flawed: in order to lie, you need to state something that you know isn't true. Just not saying something that you are going to do is not a lie.

Besides, Bush was very vague in his speech at the start of the war (as every successful politician is), but he did use the phrase "sustained commitment". http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

My point was that none of this permanent base building was mentioned previous to the invasion of Iraq.

And why should they be? Prior to the war, you don't really know if you will need them or not, but you make preparations either way. And either way, it is counterproductive to the point of such a speech (cheerleading) to discuss vague hypotheticals - especially negative ones.

And vague allegations about Bush's motive being oil need to be explained and supported. Otherwise, it is just posturing.

 

[edward]

And has bases in something like 127 other countries as well, according to a quick google search. I cannot see how the construction of a base in Iraq can justify any of the OP's opinions.

Have administrations lied about those bases in 127 other countries also.
You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[edward]

That's logically flawed: in order to lie, you need to state something that you know isn't true. Just not saying something that you are going to do is not a lie.

OK so I will just call it: Withholding vital information from the American people.

Besides, Bush was very vague in his speech at the start of the war (as every successful politician is), but he did use the phrase "sustained commitment". http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

In 2003 he never mentioned permanent bases to be finished in 2008. That is stretching "sustained commitment" a bit.

And vague allegations about Bush's motive being oil need to be explained and supported. Otherwise, it is just posturing.

Vague allegations?? Do you really think we would be in Iraq if there were no oil there? Give me a break.

U.S. VOWS NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=41251&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Yet we are building permanent bases. At some point this administrations, talking out of both sides of their mouth, is going to be very detrimental for this country.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes and those bases were established after long hard wars where there was an obvious enemy nearby. My point was that none of this permanent base building was mentioned previous to the invasion of Iraq.

Could you cite for me any instances what so ever where the US government had told the American people before or during a military conflict that it intended to set up permanent bases in any country?

Since the beginning of this I always considered it to be a foregone conclusion that the government would do this. I also think that Gokul's hypothetical reasoning is more acurate than your own. US military presence is not necessary to keep a foot in the door for that oil and there is nothing that the military can do to make sure the US gets that oil unless they actually TAKE it, and that would be incredibly stupid.

 

[Art]

There has been a subtle change in Bush's statements re US presence in Iraq. Until recently Bush has said the US forces will leave Iraq if their elected gov't asks them to. Now he says,

"As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now."

-- President George W. Bush
March 20, 2006

It seems since they elected a gov't that Bush is not too fond of the Iraqi gov'ts wishes are no longer paramount in deciding whether US forces stay or go.

 

[russ_watters]

OK so I will just call it: Withholding vital information from the American people.

Vital? That's an opinion and one you need to support. Why is it vital? Why can't it just be that he didn't know for sure and didn't want to speculate on something negative?

Edit - or, just admit and accept that it is an opinion and no better than any other opinion.

In 2003 he never mentioned permanent bases to be finished in 2008. That is stretching "sustained commitment" a bit.

So what? What's your point?

Vague allegations?? Do you really think we would be in Iraq if there were no oil there? Give me a break.

No, I don't - but there are quite a number of things that that could mean. Ie, I think we are there because the region is strategic because it has oil and it is in our best interest for the region to be stable. You are implying that we intend to steal it. Don't worry - I won't ask you to prove we intend to steal it, since it really isn't possible to prove something that hasn't happened yet. But that just makes the allegation meaningless posturing.

Yet we are building permanent bases. At some point this administrations, talking out of both sides of their mouth, is going to be very detrimental for this country.

Bush is a politician. Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Get used to it.

It isn't talking out of both sides of his mouth that could be detrimental, its the actions he takes that could be detrimental. So again: you are making vague allegations of bad things that he is doing. Be explicit as to what you are alleging, then support the allegations.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way - do permanent bases necessarily require a conclusion of a permanent US presence or are there other possible conclusions?

 

[russ_watters]

You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees.

So show it to us. Explain yourself. Support your assertions.

 

[russ_watters]

There has been a subtle change in Bush's statements re US presence in Iraq. Until recently Bush has said the US forces will leave Iraq if their elected gov't asks them to. Now he says,

It seems since they elected a gov't that Bush is not too fond of the Iraqi gov'ts wishes are no longer paramount in deciding whether US forces stay or go.

Too subtle, Art. Just because he doesn't mention the Iraqi leadership, that doesn't mean he will ignore their wishes. The quote does not require the conclusion that he will - it doesn't postively support either conclusion.

And given the fact that on the same day, Rumsfeld explicitly stated that we would consider their wishes, that puts your conclusion at odds with the available evidence.

 

[Art]

Too subtle, Art. Just because he doesn't mention the Iraqi leadership, that doesn't mean he will ignore their wishes. The quote does not require the conclusion that he will - it doesn't postively support either conclusion.

And given the fact that on the same day, Rumsfeld explicitly stated that we would consider their wishes, I think that makes your conclusion not fit the available evidence.

Wait and see...

BTW With regard to 'stealing' Iraqi oil. I provided a reference to an independent report which supported that contention in great detail in a previous thread.

 

[scott1]

This war is about oil, it has always been about oil, and there is no way that our troops will be leaving until we get the oil.

Will our troops might be getting oil but it might be enogh for us.It depends on how much the U.S. bases.We won't only need oil to power the army vehicles but we are also going to need to power the bases(unless the figured out a way to break the laws of physics at area 51) plus were going to ship the oil out which would cost some full.Also we don't get most of our oil form middle eastern countries we
get form mexico and Canada
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Orrcuding to this we get on average 466,000 barrels a day so that's 16770000 barrels a year.
Gas cost about $2.65/per gallon and according energy deprament we spend 200000000
$$530000000 = 2.65 \cdot 200000000}$$
so we sped 530000000 a day on gas if everone fills there tank once.If we have 167700000 barrels a year from Iraq and let's say there are 10 gallons of gas in a barrel so there we import 167700000000 gallons of gas form Iraq per year so
$$444405000 = 2.65 \cdot 167700000$$
so we spend $444405000 a year on buying gas form Iraq.We've been Iraq for 3 years and spent about $2000000000000 dollars on the Iraq so if we did invade Iraq for oil it's not cost effective.
Can you can give us some links to articles were poloticans/ecconmist said this?

 

[Art]

Just to correct your figures; One barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average - 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil. This represents a "processing gain" due to the fact additional other petroleum products such as alkylates are added to the refining process to create the final products. The major products are 51% motor gasoline, 15% distillate fuel oil, 13% jet fuel.

 

[russ_watters]

Wait and see...

[shrug] Posturing, Art. You don't have any basis for it, so you can't support it - all you can do is claim you'll be right later. Useless, pointless idle speculation and posturing.

BTW With regard to 'stealing' Iraqi oil. I provided a reference to an independent report which supported that contention in great detail in a previous thread.

Could you link the thread - I don't know what you are talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein stole oil from the Iraqi people - is that what you mean?

 

[edward]

Could you cite for me any instances what so ever where the US government had told the American people before or during a military conflict that it intended to set up permanent bases in any country?

Try reading the accounts of the Yalta conference. Feb 45. Did you really think that Ike just happened to decide to keep an occupation army in Germany after the war had ended? It was the same in Japan and Korea. I am a bit too young to remember much about WWII except that I do remember a playmate of mine telling me that his daddy would be staying in Germany after the war. And believe me (or not) I definitely remember Korea. We stayed and we knew we would stay.

To some degree there there had been American troops in korea since 1945.

 

[Art]

[shrug] Posturing, Art. You don't have any basis for it, so you can't support it - all you can do is claim you'll be right later. Useless, pointless idle speculation and posturing.

Hardly idle speculation given the fact they are building permanent bases there and Bush's (and the US's) track record.

Could you link the thread - I don't know what you are talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein stole oil from the Iraqi people - is that what you mean?

Crude Designs:
The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back at the topic:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee this past February that, "we have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq." A wiser policy would be ruling out any possibility that the United States will build permanent bases. This would be a big step toward a fully sovereign and democratic Iraq. We owe the Iraqi people no less.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html

And yet the new permanent bases are being built and the new Iraq democracy? has no say in the matter, except that they have told us that it would be best if we leave asap.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Try reading the accounts of the Yalta conference. Feb 45. Did you really think that Ike just happened to decide to keep an occupation army in Germany after the war had ended? It was the same in Japan and Korea. I am a bit too young to remember much about WWII except that I do remember a playmate of mine telling me that his daddy would be staying in Germany after the war. And believe me (or not) I definitely remember Korea. We stayed and we knew we would stay.

To some degree there there had been American troops in korea since 1945.

LOL... You mean where the Allies decided how they were going to split the spoils as the war was nearly over? At what point did Roosevelt tell the people that he planned to keep American troops permanently based in Germany? I seriously doubt that he did so as we entered the war and definitely not before ofcourse. Perhaps I was a little too loose in stating "during" perhaps I should have said "at the begining".

 

[edward]

LOL... You mean where the Allies decided how they were going to split the spoils as the war was nearly over? At what point did Roosevelt tell the people that he planned to keep American troops permanently based in Germany? I seriously doubt that he did so as we entered the war and definitely not before of course. Perhaps I was a little too loose in stating "during" perhaps I should have said "at the begining".

Good God at the beginning we didn't even know if we could win WWII. It wasn't a war of choice, it was a war of survival.

But when decisions were made the public was told and there certainly was no flip flopping on our reason for fighting in WWII. This was totally unlike the present war in Iraq, where the administration has given, WMD, then freedom for the Iraqi people, then Democracy for the Iraqi people, and now god only knows what as our reason for being there.

Could we please stay on topic and not use what may or may not have happened 60 years ago as an oblique excuse for the bull that the American people have been told about Iraq. The American people have blood on one hand and oil on the other and have been mislead about both.

 

[edward]

Here is a prime example of what is going on with this administration and permanent bases in Iraq. They say one thing and do another. At the time Bush made the statement below permanent bases were under construction.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush said,“As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”

http://www.republicansforhumility.com/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Could we please stay on topic and not use what may or may not have happened 60 years ago as an oblique excuse for the bull that the American people have been told about Iraq. The American people have blood on one hand and oil on the other and have been mislead about both.

Who's making excuses?! I'm just saying that I can't understand how anyone didn't already realize that was what was going to happen.

 

[Burnsys]

Who's making excuses?! I'm just saying that I can't understand how anyone didn't already realize that was what was going to happen.

well, sadly there is a lot of people who blindly believe everything the government and the media say to them..

so when bush say:
“As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”
They may understand this as "We won't be there for a long time"

Or when Donald Rumsfeld says: "We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq." A wiser policy would be ruling out any possibility that the United States will build permanent bases.

So the point is they are lying, and your counter argument is, hey everybody knew they were lying so what is the problem? sad

 

[RVBuckeye]

Resolution 1637 of the UN Security Council of 8 November 2005 furnishes the legal basis for stationing the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, presently made up over 150,000 soldiers. It prolongs the mandate first issued with Resolution 1546 of 28 June 2004 till the end of the transition period, the end of 2006. The Iraqi Prime Minister Al Jafari had explained in a letter to the Security Council the need for the continued presence of MNF as a contribution to security and for training Iraqi security forces. In a provision advocated by Germany along with other members of the Security Council, Resolution 1546 specified that the Council must end the mandate of the Multinational Force at any time on request of the Iraqi transitional government. This provision was also included in Resolution 1637.

Another major security provision of the resolution is the obligation of the UN-mandated multinational force to partnership, cooperation and consultation with Iraq’s interim government. This applies in particular to sensitive offensive military operations. The new Iraqi army is under the command of the Multinational Force. In Baghdad in particular, MNF-I has gradually started to transfer powers to the Iraqi security forces.

The Multinational Force is still divided into four military sectors: northern and central Iraq is under US command, southern Iraq under British command and the intermediate southern sector under Polish command. All the armed forces deployed in Iraq are under US supreme command.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/laenderinfos/laender/laender_ausgabe_html?land_id=62

So, if the U.S. stays after the Iraqi government requests multi-national forces to leave, then we would be in violation of Resolution 1637. Perhaps President Bush is privy to information that the rest of us (and the media) aren't, and believes we aren't going to be asked to leave for a very long time.

resolution 1637: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2005/1108mnfmandate.pdf

 

[edward]

Who's making excuses?! I'm just saying that I can't understand how anyone didn't already realize that was what was going to happen.

I agree with that position partially. I mean you and I and thousands of others could see the ,hand writing on the wall, so to speak. However the average American citizens , being those who are paying for this war and sending their children to die in this war, did not expect and were not told that there was going to be a long term occupation of Iraq.

The Administration was either being devious, or they were totally ignorant in regards to how the pre war, and post war internal social situation in Iraq would play out. I choose devious, because immediately after the invasion in 2003 Army engineers started a long term military building plan to be completed by 2008.

I also choose devious because the administrations original estimated $50 billion cost of the war immediately started to sky rocket. We are at $300 billion currently and a $1 trillion total is being mentioned.

The American people deserved to be told the truth up front. They should not have had to learn after the fact, as recent polls show ,that they were conned into Bush's unacceptable war.

 

[edward]

well, sadly there is a lot of people who blindly believe everything the government and the media say to them.

So the point is they are lying, and your counter argument is, hey everybody knew they were lying so what is the problem? sad

WOW Burnsys, that last sentence hit the old nail squarely on the head.

 

[Cyrus]

well, sadly there is a lot of people who blindly believe everything the government and the media say to them..

Thanks for the laugh. That comment is so out there it's laughable.


You do know there is a difference between occupation and having a presence right?

Does the US occupy Germany, Japan and South Korea?

 

[BobG]

well, sadly there is a lot of people who blindly believe everything the government and the media say to them..

so when bush say:
“As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”
They may understand this as "We won't be there for a long time"

Or when Donald Rumsfeld says: "We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq." A wiser policy would be ruling out any possibility that the United States will build permanent bases.

So the point is they are lying, and your counter argument is, hey everybody knew they were lying so what is the problem? sad

Most people will believe the President, unless they've been given some reason not to - especially so soon after 9/11.

In April 2003, our estimated stay was to be 4 to 5 months (according to Paul Wolfowitz). Even in June 2003, Rumsfeld was saying troop levels could be reduced to 30,000 by the end of 2003.

(The pre-war estimates of the Army Chief of Staff General Shinsecki that over 200,000 would be needed over the course of several years might have induced a little doubt, but why would a General's opinion about a military operation be given more weight than the civilian experts? )

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,461462,00.html?CNN=yes
http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraqgov2003.html

 

[Cyrus]

(The pre-war estimates of the Army Chief of Staff General Shinsecki that over 200,000 would be needed over the course of several years might have induced a little doubt, but why would a General's opinion about a military operation be given more weight than the civilian experts? )

Because the Rumsfeld doctrine wanted a smaller, more flexible, agile and lethal military.

 

[scott1]

Here is a prime example of what is going on with this administration and permanent bases in Iraq. They say one thing and do another. At the time Bush made the statement below permanent bases were under construction.


http://www.republicansforhumility.com/

I don't really consirder a site called "republicansforhumility.com" to be a reailble source of information
No one wants to stay in Iraq right now.President Bush/republicans doesn't want to stay there because he's losing public support and the war is costing alot(BTW Artman thanks for the correction I'll edit it soon).The Deomcrats don't want to stay in Iraq because they need criticzie Bush and everything he does(This main reason why they don't support the war,it's a poltical thing).The Soilders don't want to be there because there getting shot at and getting and there protected by body armor while in the desert.
Can't we try to win the war before we withdraw from Iraq?The milltary commanders are saying that it's going well it is still possible to win the war.We just need to plan for a massive counter attack against the insurgents.

 

[Burnsys]

Can't we try to win the war before we withdraw from Iraq?The milltary commanders are saying that it's going well it is still possible to win the war.We just need to plan for a massive counter attack against the insurgents.

You can't do somenthing like a "massive counter attack against the insurgents" in a guerrilla warfare. Insurgents have no base, no front line, no defence perimeter. All you can do is search house by house and find weapons..