We are not building "permanent" bases in Iraq...

[KeepItReal]

"Bush has publicly denied that the United States has permanent designs on Iraq, and on February 17, 2005, Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I can assure you that we have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq." For all the Bush administration has done to verbally dispel notions that it seeks permanent bases, it continues to plan and construct bases that are built to last, well, permanently.

Here's what we do know. In April of 2003, senior Bush administration officials told the New York Times that we were planning "a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the region." Nearly a year later, in March of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that the U.S. was constructing 14 "enduring bases." These long-term encampments were technically designated to house troops through 2006, but military officials were candid about their potential to serve as permanent bases. "Is this a swap for the Saudi bases? I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's strategic global base," Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman told the Tribune. "But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

...

But to Gary Hart, it's simple: those who are against permanent bases should be against the continued construction of such bases. "Either you are leaving or you are not. If you are leaving you don't need fixed facilities. If you are not planning to leave, you convert trench latrines and tents into fabricated steel and pour concrete runways. One is removable and the other one is not. And it's pretty simple -- if you are pouring concrete runways and welding steel, you plan to be there for a while." "

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/23755/

[KG]

1. i'm sure the iraqis will appreciate the facilites when they kick the US

out in a couple years.

think of the schools and hospitals that could have been built with those resources. here and elsewhere.

[BeyondThePale]

6. not to mention the Iranians!

[ingasm]

2. Bush Bases

Of course we're staying there, Bush wants his name to be on that trophy for eternity. He'll polish it real good to show daddy he's a big boy now.

[welshTerrier2]

3. "enduring" bases ???

several months ago, i had a chance to sit down and speak with my Congressman, Jim McGovern ... he had just returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq ...

i asked him whether it was true that the US is building "permanent bases" in Iraq ...

he told me he had asked the exact same question of the two leading American Generals he met with ... their response was that the bases are not "permanent" bases; they're "enduring" bases ...

Congressman McGovern asked them to explain the difference ... they told him that the bases are "enduring" because, after the US no longer needs them, they will be returned to the Iraqis ...

how's that for marketing hype ???

the only good news here is that bush has so badly bungled the "liberation" effort that it may be impossible for the US to achieve the neo-cons' imperialistic objectives ...

[Gregorian]

4. "We have no ambition in Iraq"- right in the SOTU speech.

Bush stands for BULLSHIT.

That, I do know. As far as permanent bases, I'm ignorant. But why would this administration not want permanent bases? They want to rule the world. Permanently.

[madrchsod]

5. riverbends post on june 21

"the republic of the green zone" ya we are going to stay unless iran-iraq decides to throw us out.

[Fluffdaddy]

7. We need a permanent military base in the middle east. If not Iraq..where?

[Lexingtonian]

8. Um, why?

Please explain the assumptions involved.

[Fluffdaddy]

9. A super power needs the ability to respond in all parts of the

world and to do that you need bases aka Boots on the ground in all parts of the world. Think Rome and the UK in their hey-day.

[Lexingtonian]

10. Are we Rome or Victorian England?

Are we an empire? What's the point of it, what are the specific interests?

I don't think the U.S. is that. It's playing at it because too many Republicans read Gibbon and imagine they are living in England of that time period, but it's not a reality.

All this "need" talk is unwarranted and unwarrantable tautology.

[Fluffdaddy]

12. Are we an empire ?....No. But the World is Not a safe place.

There are people and countries wishing to do us and our allies harm.........If they can. And to stop them we needs military bases close to the hot spots of the world. There comes responsibilities with being the worlds good guys and a super power.

[Lexingtonian]

13. Name even one

that requires us to have bases in the Middle East.

There aren't any.

And if you're going to try to make the case for China, they've just managed to break the American containment effort targetting their oil supply routes. In Central Asia, with help of the Russians.

[Contrary1]

17. I'm not so sure

we are considered the "good guys" by most of the world these days.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. But we are........ As a country as a people we mean to do the Right things

But some times our leaders screw-up. Bush and his neocon puppet masters wasted a lot of the worlds good will towards us. We need to get our people back in power to handle overseas policy again. That's why 06 & 08 elections are so big for us.....We can't F-up and run people that can not win. I personaly feel the DLC is doing whats needs to be done to win in the soft red states

[Nederland]

16. To protect OUR oil

...silly :)

[RadiDem]

11. If we HAVE to have them (I don't agree we do) put them in Israel

[Igel]

14. Word games can be fun.

But make bad policy and bad politics.

We had "permanent bases" in Sa'udi Arabia. And in the Philippines. We ceased occupying both. The bases were permanent in some limited sense, but obviously did not require permanent occupation by us. Note that I'm seeking a permanent job, but it's not like I intend to spend the next 18 billion years there, or the employer needs to guarantee that there'll be a job for me in the year 2346. Some words need a context.

The sense opposed to "permanent" in both cases is "temporary", which implies things like tents and easily dismantleable structures, when applied to bases, and an explicit agreement by me and the employer that the job will end Real Soon Now, when applied to a job.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Fort Zinderneuf and Fort Apache only have to last 'til the oil's gone.

Nah, they're not PERMANENT. They only need to last for 112.5 Billion Barrels or so.