Permanent bases were always the military goal of the Iraq Vendetta. Anyone listening to thoughtful interviews before the invasion on shows like Charlie Rose would have heard about permanent bases and a war plan that estimated ten years of occupation, a trillion dollars of investment in such a venture, and so on. In fact Vice-presidential gopher, Dick Cheney would rear his head from underground to snear that such talk was false which only confirmed the veracity of those dialogues for anyone with a brain.

The permanent bases represent yet more investment in the misguided idea that nationalist military solutions are useful in a global macrocosm.

The facts that our economy is wholly dependent on goods and services from overseas, oil that's depleting in accelerated rates, and ecological frailties are largely being ignored. The illusion that we can prop up phony governments in the Middle East, provide fast attack access to military targets in the Middle East, Asia, and Soviet teritories, and so on blind the debate.

Our inability to grasp that we are no longer in charge of the world amuses soon-to-be-bullies China, India, and Russia. We cannot imagine blowback from these postures.

We do not plan on being an occupying force - we are an occupying force representing a political puppeteer who weilds overwhelming military technology and no popular sentiment in the region. Who sees any of this as a recipe for global stabilization?

Liberal Voice

You say that our government is unable to accept that the U.S. is no longer "in charge of the world," but this charge seems to be inaccurate. Is not the Iraq War itself proof of this? There would have been no need for an invasion if the U.S. thought it could, of its own accord, coerce other nations into granting us our desires.

From a strategic point of view the idea of permanent military bases is a good idea; one which carries with it precedent and a track record of success. Germany, South Korea, etc. are all examples of U.S. military installations which have stabalized the world.

During the 2004 election season President Bush repeatedly accused Democrats of being "isolationists." At the time I was not happy with him employing that term because it seemed crass and unnecessarily confrontational. Now I'm beginning to think maybe he was right afterall. The Democrats simply have no viable alternative to Bush's foreign policy. Indeed, the left seems only to be able to argue that what Bush has done is wrong; yet they provide no alternative "better" solution.

That, in essence, is why the GOP has dominated the last several elections. The Democrats main platform since 2000 has been to merely ostrasize the Bush administration without providing plans of their own. News Flash: voters don't like that. If the Democrats continue to disagree over foreign policy and Iraq (or Iran and N. Korea) you can expect more GOP dominance at the polls.

"There would have been no need for an invasion if the U.S. thought it could, of its own accord, coerce other nations into granting us our desires."

Sophistry from Gettysburg, as usual. The FACT is that the US state believed and still believes that it has the RIGHT to invade anybody it doesn't like for any reason. It has nothing to do with whether other countries actually acquiesce in this nonsense. What matters is the FACT of the invasion, not that Iraq didn't roll over.

"Germany, South Korea, etc. are all examples of U.S. military installations which have stabalized the world."

The German bases were in acountry that were aligned with the US politically and socially and ethnically against the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union.

The bases in South Korea merely stimulated the North Koreans to ever greater levels of military development, which has resulted in the current threatened conflict there. While the presence of the US troops in SK acted as a tripwire preventing a resumption of the Korean War, it inevitabily fueled more problems - including among the South Koreans themselves, many of whom are tired of having US troops in their country.

None of this applies to having bases in the Middle East - especially in a country where eighty percent of the population already want the US out of there.

The rest of Gettysburg's post is correct - the Dems are "me,too" statists and the public doesn't vote for "me, too" candidates.

But if the Dems ever did come up with an intelligent foreign policy, Gettysburg wouldn't like it.

Ah; but consider how much more desert is available in Iraq than in Germany and South Korea.

Seriously though, the United States doesn't occupy Iraq, today; it occupies the Green Zone and a large number of military facilities from which it performs force protection (principally, securing supply-lines) and exits out of its "castles" on occasional operations to support whichever political party the US is backing at the time.

As long as the bases are sited away from population centers, garrison tactics of this sort should be available to US forces, indefinitely.

You can accuse me of being an isolationist. What makes you think Americans aren't of two minds about foreign entanglements? Looks to me like the choices on my ballot will be between Party A which wants to attack Iran and Party B which wants to attack Korea and no party that has a clue how to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Party A will pay for this unrestrained militarism by bankrupting our seniors and Party B will pay for this unrestrained militarism by bankrupting our children. It's enough to make you pull the covers over your head on election day and hide till its all over.

primacy is the gambit, not the  fait accompli and to my mind, it is an unavoidable gambit give the rule of realism which you so well describe.  I guess we will just have to see what shakes out.

TH

If the Dems came up with ANY alternate foreign policy I would absolutely love to analyze it. So far they've given me nothing.

That's kind of a "duh" comment, Ellen - that the US isn't "occupying" Iraq.

We still have 130,000 troops there, Ellen. And when they "leave", we'll still have 30-50,000 there most likely.

That's not a "garrison", Ellen - unless you're talking about a "tripwire force" like that in North Korea which also numbers 25-32,000. And they were moved south of Seoul recently because it was clear they'd all get killed in the first 72 hours of a war with the North.

As I said, you can put a large force in a country like Germany. You can't do it in Iraq without a permanent insurgency. The Brits learned that in Iraq years ago and the Russians AND the Brits learned that in Afghanistan and the Brits are learning it all over again in Afghanistan. In the old days, it cost the Brits 16,000 of their troops in one massacre.

Now the US is going to learn it.

"If war erupts with Syria or Iran, or both concurrently, how are we going to get the ground forces into attack position in a timely manner, with a defensible and suppliable forward base of operations?"

Precisely why we're doing this, of course.

Because we INTEND for war to "erupt" with Iran and Syria.

Israel and the neocons are stoking it as we speak.

Frankly, I think Kleinfeld got nailed so badly on her first posts here, she's trying to recover by bringing up a supposed "no brainer" - no permanent bases in Iraq. I don't even believe she's against them - you'll notice she doesn't actually say that. She merely points out that having huge bases in Iraq "kinda" hurts our "credibility" (what credibility?) about not being an "occupying force" - which as some here have pointed out, isn't technically correct anyway.

In other words, she's playing word games here again.

Let's talk about the size, at least of the base about which I have the most direct knowledge, LSA ANACONDA. This, and some of the other major bases, already were there at the time of the invasion. ANACONDA is the largest US base, the major airfield for military flights since Baghdad International was made civilian-only. Prior to the invasion, it was the Iraqi Balad Air Base, already a Iraqi permanent facility. When I last looked, there were 47,000 people stationed there, although I don't have the military/contractor split handy.

Other, smaller bases have been turned over. Unfortunately, I just knew them by the US base name, but they were existing facilities.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think these statements are pretty clear:

'"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality.

"This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East," Kimmitt said. "[But] the engineering vision is well ahead of the policy vision. What the engineers are saying now is: Let's not be behind the policy decision. Let's make this place ready so we can address policy options."'

Dahr Jamail has a description of some of these bases:

" To give you an idea of what these look like in Iraq, let's start with Camp Anaconda, near Balad. Occupying 15 square miles of Iraq, the base boasts two swimming pools (not the plastic inflatable type), a gym, mini-golf course and first-run movie theater.

The 20,000 soldiers who live at the Balad Air Base, less than 1,000 of whom ever leave the base, can inspect new iPod accessories in one of the two base exchanges, which have piles of the latest electronics and racks of CDs to choose from. One of the PX managers recently boasted that every day he was selling 15 televisions to soldiers.

At Camp Anaconda, located in Salahuddin province where resistance is fierce, the occupation forces live in air-conditioned units where plans are being drawn up to run internet, cable television and overseas telephone access to them.

The thousands of civilian contractors live at the base in a section called "KBR-land," and there is a hospital where doctors carry out 400 surgeries every month on wounded troops.

Air Force officials on the base claim the runway there is one of the busiest in the world, where unmanned Predator drones take off carrying their Hellfire missiles, along with F-16's, C-130's, helicopters, and countless others, as the bases houses over 250 aircraft.

If troops aren't up for the rather lavish dinners served by "Third Country Nationals" from India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh who work for slave wages, they can visit the Burger King, Pizza Hut, Popeye's or Subway, then wash it down with a mocha from the Starbucks.

There are several other gigantic bases in Iraq besides camp Anaconda, such as Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, which - according to a reporter for Mother Jones magazine - when complete will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The Kosovo base is currently one of the largest overseas bases built since the war in Vietnam.

Camp Liberty is adjacent to Camp Victory - where soldiers even compete in their own triathlons. "The course, longer than 140 total miles, spanned several bases in the greater Camp Victory area in west Baghdad," says a news article on a DOD web site.

Mr. Bush refuses to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because he doesn't intend to withdraw. He doesn't intend to because he's following a larger plan for the US in the Middle East.

Less than two weeks after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, US military officials announced the intention to maintain at least four large bases in Iraq that could be used in the future.

These are located near Baghdad International Airport (where the triathlon was), Tallil (near Nasiriyah, in the south), one in the Kurdish north at either Irbil or Qayyarah (they are only 80 kilometers apart) and one in western al-Anbar province at Al-Asad. Of course, let's not forget the aforementioned Camp Anaconda in Balad.

More recently, on May 22 of last year, US military commanders announced that they would consolidate troops into four large air bases. It was announced at this time that while buildings were being made of concrete instead of the usual metal trailers and tin-sheathed buildings, military officers working on the plan "said the consolidation plan was not meant to establish a permanent US military presence in Iraq."

Right.

The US has at least four of these massive bases in Iraq. Billions of dollars have been spent in their construction, and they are in about the same locations where they were mentioned they would be by military planners back before Mr. Bush declared that major combat operations were over in Iraq."

Let's cut the crap. The US is going to have at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for the next ten years. And if they set foot outside those bases, they're going to get blown up.

Liberal Voice

Bush did not get his war because of his "personal vendetta." I completely agree that an Iraq War was in the works before 9/11. I'll even go further and say it was in the works while Clinton was still president.

But the Bush administration (i.e. Neocons, oil conglomerates, energy bigwigs, etc) have something much bigger in mind.

As I said on a different thread, it took a World War to get the United States addicted to oil. It will take another large war to break that addiction and start another one.

Bush, even Cheney is a puppet. The masters are the boardmembers of Big Oil and Energy. They dictate policy and they are the ones who have something to unveil soon. A region wide Middle Eastern war would kill the oil industry...

LiberalVoice

I acknowledged that a Middle Eastern war would kill the oil industry. So why would American oil men want that?

Because they have an alternative which will leave oil in the "dust"...

LB

The Exxon-Mobile chief will naturally distance his company from the Bush administration. Trusting his words is scarcely different than trusting the words of Bush or Cheney. He's just another part of BushCo.