Basic Questions About Bases (Iraq)-Asia Times

[Gloria]

From the new World Media Watch up now at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical
Tomorrow at Buzzflash.com


2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Aug 6, 2005

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html



BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT BASES

By Ashraf Fahim

Hardly a day has gone by in the past few weeks without a new press report detailing the US military's plans to reduce its footprint in Iraq next year. First it was a leaked British memo saying that Britain would hand over southern Iraq to the Iraqis and the US would cut its troops in half. Then it was General George W Casey, the senior commander in Iraq, promising a "fairly substantial" US withdrawal by the summer of 2006. Finally, there was the announcement of a joint Iraqi-US committee to determine the "conditions" for a US exit.

SNIP


Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Asia Times Online it would be strange if America didn't intend to stay in Iraq. "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia," he said, "and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." The idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

SNIP

Erik Leaver, of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and a long-time proponent of a promise to close US military bases, told Asia Times Online that the kind of construction taking place belies statements from President George W Bush that the US only intends to stay "as long as necessary and not one day more", as Bush said on April 13, 2004. Not only are ammunition dumps and concrete runways and roads being built, he said, but so is long-term housing for US troops.

"We can tell by looking at the supplementals and the defense bills that they are building concrete masonry barracks," says Leaver, "And some of the justification is that tents and containers only have a life span of three to five years. The implication is that they need something longer than that." Leaver said the military did have a plausible rationale for using concrete. "If mortars are being lobbed into military bases then you want to put soldiers into concrete masonry barracks for their safety," he said, "but that's the same stuff that my house and office building are constructed from, and those things are pretty permanent."

US Senator Gary Hart captured the inconsistencies such construction reveal in the Bush administration's rationale for its Iraq project. "If the goal ... was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies) then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence," Hart wrote in May. "If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don't."

Keeping Its options open
Another question, of course, is whether, even if the Bush administration declared it would pull out altogether, its guarantee would have the desired effect.



(MORE)

[karynnj]

1. Gary Hart really has summed things up

Bush's actions don't match his stated goals - Could he possibly be lying again?

[Gloria]

2. Shameless kick...

eom