How Can America Withdraw from Iraq with Permanent Bases

[Clara T]

being situated in Iraq? So for any politician to even mention withdrawal without the mentioning of eliminating and/or stopping the installation of permanent military bases is completely duplicitous and disingenuous

An Elephant in Two Rooms
By Gordon Robison
Mideast Analysis
January 18, 2006

In one sense it is simple. Everyone agrees that the United States should withdraw from Iraq. At its core, the debate between the war’s supporters and opponents is essentially about timing. When President Bush says the US has no desire to occupy Iraq permanently many Arabs are skeptical, but the vast majority of Americans – even Bush’s most vitriolic opponents – accept that statement at a basic level.

And there lies the seed of the next bitter conflict in both Washington and Baghdad. Because something you almost never hear discussed in either capital is what the term ‘withdrawal’ actually means. For both Iraqis and Americans it is the elephant in the room – the issue we willfully ignore because discussing it honestly will only make a bitter political debate even worse.
The problem is that while everyone talks about ‘withdrawal’ politicians of different stripes – in Washington and Baghdad alike – use the term to mean very different things. The politicians themselves all (well, mostly) understand this but, for a variety of reasons, rarely explain it to their constituents. Until now, this approach has had some utility for all concerned, but the time is coming when some uncomfortable questions will need to be confronted.

Let’s start in America. The Pentagon’s desire for permanent bases in Iraq is an ill-kept secret, even by Washington standards. From the US military’s point of view the issue is urgent. Their large base at Al-Kharj, south of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was closed a few years ago. Uzbekistan’s government

http://www.mideastanalysis.com/?item=an-elephant-in-two-rooms

[HereSince1628]

1. We are not leaving Iraq until every recoverable drop of oil is out.

Iraq is strategic because of its oil and because of its proximity to other countries' oil.

We will probably get "down to a garrison strength" of 50k-75 sometime in the summer. That will allow the r's to campaign on the lie of American success.

[Igel]

2. We left the Philippines with permanent bases.

And we've closed many a permanent base in the US. Even in Germany, recently.

It's a troop base that's permanent, which means "not intended for temporary use" in this context. Concrete installations, plumping, that sort of thing. As opposed to troops sheltering in tents and behind temporary fencing and using port-a-potties.

Permanent troop basing would be what you're after, and that's a different matter.

It's always fun to deconstruct some articles. For example, since the US is building permanent bases, it must mean we intend to stay in perpetuity. It's the only thing that it could possibly mean, and is sufficient to carry the point. But the author points out that the (permanent) Sa'udi bases were closed. So "permanent bases" absolutely positively must mean "permanently based troops" ... unless it doesn't mean that at all, in which case never mind.

[kineneb]

3. easy: cover my back while I get in the chopper...

just the way we left Vietnam. Pack up the portable toys, last one out turns out lights. It is not the bases that make the difference, it is the will of the leadership. If they really wanted to leave, they would.

[Disturbed]

4. Leave the oil and the strategic military position?

No freakin' way!


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)



Bush Regime Iraq Successes (Phase 1)

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5.The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.


Phase 2?