Permanent Bases: Leave Iraq? Hell No, We Won't Go!

[reprehensor]

http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel01062004.html

Well, if you're going to war, obviously troops are going to a theater and to a country and in the immediate aftermath of such a conflict, there would have to be a need for some presence until such time as you can put in place a better system. I mean, the United States has done this many times in the course of the last 50 or 60 years and we always try to get out as quickly as we can once we have reestablished peace, put in place a stable system, it is never our intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our military forces.

--Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered," October 11, 2002.

Those guiding Bush/neo-conservative foreign policy intend to establish a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. This little-noted aim, not "oil," is the real "elephant" in the American voter's living room. (The issue of appropriating Iraqi oil and oil revenue will be dealt with after the "coalition" take-over to set up bases on Iraqi soil.) Secretary Powell's disingenuous comment on NPR (above) failed to note that in the past 50 or 60 years the United States still maintains a military presence in many countries long past "the immediate aftermath" of conflict. The currently-infamous U.S. installation at Guantanamo Bay dates back to 1901. A hundred-year stay in Iraq would not be anything new. How many bases? At what financial cost? At what continued (possibly never-ending) cost to human beings wounded or killed?

On April 20, 2003, The New York Times ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq. The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story as "inaccurate and unfortunate." But what did Rumsfeld mean by "inaccurate"? Perhaps it was "unfortunate" for the administration when the basing plan was leaked to the press. Perhaps the plan was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon or White House. The national media dropped the story after Rumsfeld's disclaimer.

Was the story "inaccurate" because instead of four military installations, the government has plans for six bases, as reported on November 19, 2003, by the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm:

[Aidoneus]

1. beyond the dishonesty, it's a ridiculous plan

They're packaging it as an "end to the occupation"--with the same old shit, but being "invited" & rubberstamped by their Vichy puppet regime. Now, this much makes sense from the pro-occupation standpoint..

But then, these big bases would really just be a giant bull's eye for the resistance movements that will not see any real "end to the occupation" by the language shift. The brilliant fucking geniuses in the "defense" business think it's a great idea to keep a half-dozen glorified tombs around, just to maintain their ability to politically manipulate and economically rape the region.

Just today, a 6-round mortar attack on a base injured 35; expect months of that with large permanent bases. Six mortars can be fired from equipment stored in the back of a car, the resistance fighters can speed away before the occupation forces know what has hit them. Permanent & fixed targets just makes aiming easier. Perhaps they can clear enough space to keep safe from mortar attacks, maybe the resistance will just switch over to katyushas instead and add a dozen miles to the range that the occupation forces will need to keep in mind. There's no decent way to avoid the consequences of maintaining the occupation, except the obvious answer that most of the powersthatbe will never consider.