Operation: Enduring Presence (The Word Game of "Permanent" Bases in Iraq)

[Hissyspit]

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

Operation: Enduring Presence
By Sam Graham-Felsen, AlterNet
Posted on July 28, 2005, Printed on July 28, 2005

When I called former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart at his office in Colorado, I explained that I was working on a story about permanent bases in Iraq. "Right," Hart replied, "unlike the New York Times and the Washington Post. The fact that no one's discussing this is a great mystery to me," Hart told me.

- snip -

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.

- snip -

There is a spectrum of opinion on the exact nature of these bases. "Permanent," of course, is a dirty word in Washington, and even the most anti-war politicians are tentative to designate them as such.... Eric Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies put it this way: "These bases are made out of concrete. My house is made of concrete, and I consider my house to be pretty permanent." And Larry Diamond, Hoover fellow and former advisor to Paul Bremer, has bluntly declared that the bases are permanent. This past February, he told a UCLA audience: "e could declare ... that we have no permanent military designs on Iraq and we will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. This one statement would do an enormous amount to undermine the suspicion that we have permanent imperial intentions in Iraq. We aren't going to do that. And the reason we're not going to do that is because we are building permanent military bases in Iraq."

- snip -

Democratic Reps. Tom Allen of Maine and Barbara Lee of California have introduced resolutions on permanent bases in recent weeks. While both resolutions call for the administration to eliminate the possibility of establishing permanent bases, again, neither of them addresses enduring bases. "The focus here is on policy and not construction," Lee's spokesman, Nathan Britton, told me. "I'm not a commander on the ground and for that reason I'm not going to speculate about the reasons for consolidating troops into bases… This is a really important debate that needs to happen and it's not going to get caught up in the policy of supporting the troops or not supporting the troops."

MORE

[chimpymustgo]

1. Silence, lies, obfuscation. The usual menu.

Rummy effing LIED to Congress. Again. Among others. It's almost too much to keep up with.

[Lerkfish]

3. I think that's the strategy: lie so often its wearying to know where to

start refuting them.

[Lerkfish]

2. color me not surprised.

yet its good to see this in the media, finally.

[Sperk]

4. Jeb's second term? Now they're rubbing thier thievery in our faces

cause they know we wont do a damn thing about it!!!


There is a spectrum of opinion on the exact nature of these bases. "Permanent," of course, is a dirty word in Washington, and even the most anti-war politicians are tentative to designate them as such. Defense expert John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org believes the bases lack components of official "permanency" -- such as reinforced steel and ground-level concrete slabs--but admits that military has been deliberately vague and hesitant about releasing detailed information. "Look, if they say they're building these bases as part of a withdrawal plan, that's because the withdrawal plan is victory. And we're not even close to victory, which is exactly why they're building these bases," Pike told me. "We're going to be there by the end of Jeb's second term."