Asia Times: Basic questions about bases

[Frederik]

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.

The Bush administration, it would seem, is finally responding to pervasive anti-occupation sentiment in the US and Iraq. But the raft of announcements does little to address what many believe is a deeper problem - the Iraqi insurgency is likely being driven by fears that even once the large majority of US forces leave, enough will remain behind in permanent bases to allow the US to control Iraq's destiny.

There is now a growing chorus in the US arguing that it should be made clear to Iraqis that all US forces will eventually depart. As the Iraqi insurgency rages unabated, with scores of US soldiers killed in the first days of August alone, the notion that such a promise might alter the current dynamic is taking hold in the mainstream. Two members of Congress have separately sponsored resolutions calling for a declaration that the US will not maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq.

(...)

Larry Diamond, a former senior adviser to the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, recently wrote that the administration's refusal to declare it doesn't seek permanent military bases "has aroused Iraqi suspicions that we seek long-term domination of their country". And Anthony Cordesman of the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies, regarded as the dean of Middle East strategic studies by the Washington establishment, said in recent testimony to the Senate that the administration should "make it clear that the US and Britain will not maintain post-insurgency bases in Iraq".

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

[RC]

1. And what about the 14 or so permanent military bases in Iraq?

"Two members of Congress have separately sponsored resolutions calling for a declaration that the US will not maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq."

Do these two Congress critters know about those?

[Igel]

3. We had permanent military bases in

the Philippines and in Sa'udi Arabia.

But we left (we returned to some in the Philippines after a few years). The bases stayed.

The bases were permanent. We weren't.

"Permanent military bases" isn't a bracketing paradox.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

2. post-insurgency?!

o wait i know when this will be.

It's the day nordic skiing saison starts in hell.