Basic questions about bases (US in Iraq for a long time )

[leftchick]

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


Basic questions about bases
By Ashraf Fahim

<snip>

Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Asia Times Online it would be strange if America didn't intend to stay in Iraq. "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia," he said, "and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." The idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

Persistent reports that the US is constructing permanent bases in Iraq lend credence to the view that the Bush administration plans to stay. The Chicago Tribune reported in March 2004 that the US was building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq, and the Washington Post reported in May that US forces would eventually be consolidated into four large, permanent air bases.

<snip>

"We can tell by looking at the supplementals and the defense bills that they are building concrete masonry barracks," says Leaver, "And some of the justification is that tents and containers only have a life span of three to five years. The implication is that they need something longer than that." Leaver said the military did have a plausible rationale for using concrete. "If mortars are being lobbed into military bases then you want to put soldiers into concrete masonry barracks for their safety," he said, "but that's the same stuff that my house and office building are constructed from, and those things are pretty permanent."

US Senator Gary Hart captured the inconsistencies such construction reveal in the Bush administration's rationale for its Iraq project. "If the goal ... was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies) then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence," Hart wrote in May. "If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don't."

[Truth__Seeker]

1. When do we get the answers?!!!!

[leftchick]

2. when we get congress critters who DEMAND them

I have been waiting for the answer to this base question for over 2 years now.

[0007]

3. .....and all that talk about bringing the troops home is nothing but

propaganda at its best. I find it odd that no one indeed wants to talk about those fourteen military installations and what it will take to operate them.

[leftchick]

4. I would guess 50,000 US troops at the very least

I am sure that is an underestimate. I am also sure there will be several thousand private contractors as well.