When I first read that we were planning to build l6 huge permanent military bases in Iraq I was flabbergasted. I thought, “This is a huge story. It will be all over Time and Newsweek soon.”
As you know, it has been “all over” nowhere.
I have remained intensely curious about those bases. It’s not easy finding facts, not even to determine how many bases there will be, or even if they are definitely being built.
I offer this diary merely as a start. Here is the little bit I have been able to find. Please add anything you know and correct anything you believe I have wrong.
How many? 16, 14, 13, 4? I have seen all those numbers, but have not been able to determine which is correct. During one of the debates, Sen. Kerry mentioned 14 bases. The Chicago Tribune said 14, but that was back in March of 2004.
Where? The plan may be to build them on the ruins of abandoned Iraqi army bases.
“John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group Global/Security.org has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard `military city’ that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Merez, next to Mosul Airport.”
Source: “Not-So Endearing Enduring Military Bases in Iraq, by Mark Drolette, Scoop Independent News, May 20, 2005.
scoop.co.nz.
It’s very confusing. That column with that info ran on May 20 of this year. But on May 23 of this year, there was an article in The Guardian that said we are building four air bases: in Tallil, Al Asad, Balad, and either Irbil or Qayyarah. (North, West, South, and Center.) It said we are going to pull our troops back from towns and cities and redeploy them in those bases “as a prelude to eventual withdrawal.” Some claim the bases will be handed over to Iraq control. Others see them as evidence that we aren’t going home. I just don’t know if these four are part of-or instead of-the larger number.
It would help if our media were interested in this huge “footprint” that is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, not to mention the effect it will have on Iraq.
Hello? Journalists?
How big? Depends on the number of bases. The biggest number I’ve found is l00,000 troops.
How long? They’re sometimes called “enduring” bases. How long is “enduring”? I found no real answer, just educated guesses that ranged upwards to “decades.”
Cost? Billions. I found a quote of $4.5 billion going to the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR.
Rationale for the project
To maintain a big, permanent military presence in that region, but to improve on the status quo by moving our military out of Saudi Arabia and into another, (supposedly) more secure and hospitable country.
Gee, fellows, how’s that working out for you?
An article in Mother Jones in 2003 quotes Karen Kwiatkowski, the retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who worked for DOD, as saying that the neocons want the bases to protect Israel and launch operations into Syria and Iran. “Eighty percent of Iraquis will grouse,” she is quoted as saying, “but they have no political power. We’ll stay whether they want us to, or not.”
Also Mother Jones: “According to one intelligence source in Baghdad, maintaining a quick reaction force in Iraq would be essential to prevent, for example, a coup against a friendly Iraqi government. And the Pentagon sees Iraq as possibly playing a role in its global realignment of U.S. forces-a shift away from the static, Cold War basing arrangements in Europe to smaller, more flexible deployments in volatile regions like the Middle East.”
When I googled this, I found a headline from the Freeper site, Free Republic:
“WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ: Military Bases Are a Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective.”
Sounds like the truth to me.
Opposition:
There is a group that offers the following Resolution to Oppose Permanent Hard Military Bases in Iraq:
WHEREAS, False evidence was used to generate fear of Iraqi WMD,legitimate efforts to locate and destroy WMDs were thwarted, legitimate efforts to locate and destroy WMDs were forced to end, traditional allies were alienated by our dominating and demeaning posture, we initiated an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, we declared “Mission Accomplished” in April 2003, we allowed theft, vandalism and looting of Iraqi property, and
we inhumanly treated detainees;
WHEREAS, we destroyed uncounted lives and property as a means of control; and
WHEREAS, our presence has exacerbated opposition and increased threats to our country, our continued presence places additional burden on our economic stability, our continued presence places additional burden on our armed forces, and;
WHEREAS, hard bases are an indicator to the world of our intention to subjugate the area for our own benefit, there are no remaining WMDs in the Iraq, our revised stated objective is to leave an Iraq free of control by Saddam Hussein has been met, and
our occupation serves an a potent recruitment tool for insurgencies, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that all efforts toward planning, building, equipping and manning permanent, hard military bases in Iraq be terminated, and be it
RESOLVED, that we make clear our total withdrawal of control of Iraq to the world.
History:
The genesis appears to be The (infamous) Project for the New American Century (PNAC)’s Sept. 20 report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.”
. . .the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (p. 14)
Me again: This isn’t much, and it’s shaky, but it’s more than I knew before I started looking. This story seems huge to me, it always has, and yet it has been almost totally ignored.
