Permanent bases, enduring bases . . .what's the difference?

[bigtree]

US and UK forces establish 'enduring bases' in Iraq

Despite talk of withdrawal 'when the job is done', there are signs that coalition troops will be there for the long term

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 02 April 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article355178.ece

The Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of dollars establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the prospect that US and UK forces could be involved in a long-term deployment in the country. It said it assumed British troops would operate one of the bases.

Almost ever since President Bush claimed an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq on 1 May 2003, debate has focused on how quickly troops could be withdrawn. The US and British governments say troops will remain in Iraq "until the job is done". Yet while the withdrawal of a substantial number of troops remains an aim, it has become increasingly clear that the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are preparing to retain some forces in Iraq for the longer term. The US currently has around 130,000 troops in Iraq; Britain has 8,000.

Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman for the coalition forces' headquarters in Iraq, told The Independent on Sunday: "The current plan is to reduce the coalition footprint into six consolidation bases - four of which are US. As we move in that direction, some other bases will have to grow to facilitate the closure transfer of smaller bases."

He added: "Right now, I don't have any information that tells me which nationality will comprise the remaining two bases, though my assumption is that at least one will be run by the Brits." An MoD spokesperson said British forces were currently operating out of eight bases in southern Iraq, with a small contingent based in Baghdad, and that "discussions with coalition forces relating to future basing are still at a very early stage. Nothing has been agreed."

full report:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article355178.ece

[LynnTheDem]

1. Nada. No difference.

WHY does BAGHDAD have the world's largest (US) embassy?

Oh we all know why...cept the 32% stupid MFing rightwingnut bushbots.

[davhill]

2. Six little Gitmo's

Is what we'll probably end up with. The Iraqi government will ask us to leave and we will just retreat into these expensive, self-contained. outside supplied bases from where we can threaten anyone.

[neoblues]

3. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise...

works better if you imagine Gomer Pyle saying it. It's nice that it's in the news somewhere in the world since it may trickle back a little, but until we get our own media house in order, it's as though such things don't even exist (to the infamous 50-60% of the American Public anyway).

[jaxx]

4. Didn't the bushies name something enduring freedom?

Bush's legacy...............enduring war.

[sheelz]

5. Here's an article to answer your question.

Can You Say 'Permanent Bases'?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060327/engelhardt

In a recent Zogby poll, American troops stationed in Iraq were asked about an otherwise unexplored subject: the massive network of bases the Bush Administration is building in that country. Only 6 percent said they believed that America's "real mission" in Iraq was "to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region." You can bet your bottom dollar that if Zogby had been able to do an honest poll of top Bush Administration officials on the subject, he'd have gotten quite a different response.

It makes no sense to talk about withdrawal from Iraq, which has recently been the object of much speculation (in the same Zogby poll, 72 percent of the troops in Iraq said they want the United States to exit that country within a year), without also talking about those bases. Yet they have hardly been mentioned in our media or in political discussion. We have no idea, in fact, how many Americans even realize that we have such bases.

Sometimes to get one's bearing it helps to focus on the concrete. In an online engineering magazine in late 2003, Lieut. Col. David Holt, the Army officer described as "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction, which has been continuing ever since. In a country otherwise in startling disarray, our bases are like vast spaceships from another solar system. A staggering investment of resources, they are unlikely places for the Bush Administration to hand over willingly even to the friendliest Iraqi government.

more at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060327/engelhardt

[MADem]

6. Permanent bases cost more to build

They're constructed of concrete, lotsa rebar, tons of building materials (mucho profit for contractors). Enduring bases are like what we tossed up in Bosnia and elsewhere. The buildings are predominantly prefab, but they are very comfortable. Decently insulated, with carpet, sometimes with some built in features like closets and so forth, but they either come in all in a piece, or can be constructed like legos. You might pour a concrete pad and slap one on there, then all you have to do is hook up the lights and you're in business, because they are prewired. If you need protection from hostile fire or a perimeter within the confines of the facility, you put berms or jersey barriers around them. I once worked in a facility like that; it had been there for fifteen years and was still in great shape.