  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Great American DisconnectPosted on Jun 10, 2007Note: This article was originally published on TomDispatch The Great American Disconnect
Iraq Has Always Been “South Korea” for the Bush Administration
Finally, the great American disconnect may be ending. Only four years after the invasion of Iraq, the crucial facts-on-the-ground might finally be coming into sight in this country—not the carnage or the mayhem; not the suicide car bombs or the chlorine truck bombs; not the massive flight of middle-class professionals, the assassination campaign against academics, or the collapse of the best healthcare service in the region; not the spiking American and Iraqi casualties, the lack of electricity, the growth of Shiite militias, the crumbling of the “coalition of the willing,” or the uprooting of 15% or more of Iraq’s population; not even the sharp increase in fundamentalism and extremism, the rise of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, the swelling of sectarian killings, or the inability of the Iraqi government to get oil out of the ground or an oil law, designed in Washington and meant to turn the clock back decades in the Middle East, passed inside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone—no, none of that. What’s finally coming into view is just what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the top officials of their administration, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, and their neocon followers had in mind when they invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003.
But let me approach this issue another way. For the last week, news jockeys have been plunged into a debate about the “Korea model,” which, according to the New York Times and other media outlets, the president is suddenly considering as the model for Iraq. ("Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea.") You know, a limited number of major American bases tucked away out of urban areas; a limited number of American troops (say, 30,000-40,000), largely confined to those bases but ready to strike at any moment; a friendly government in Baghdad; and (as in South Korea where our troops have been for six decades) maybe another half-century-plus of quiet garrisoning. In other words, this is the time equivalent of a geographic “over the horizon redeployment” of American troops. In this case, “over the horizon” would mean through 2057 and beyond.
This, we are now told, is a new stage in administration thinking. White House spokesman Tony Snow seconded the “Korea model” ("You have the United States there in what has been described as an over-the-horizon support role ... as we have in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability and assurance on the part of the South Korean people against a North Korean neighbor that is a menace. ..."); Defense Secretary Robert Gates threw his weight behind it as a way of reassuring Iraqis that the U.S. “will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, ‘lock, stock and barrel,’ ” as did “surge plan” second-in-command in Baghdad, Lt. General Ray Odierno. ("Q: Do you agree that we will likely have a South Korean-style force there for years to come? GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I think that’s a strategic decision, and I think that’s between us and—the government of the United States and the government of Iraq. I think it’s a great idea.")
David Sanger of the New York Times recently summed up this “new” thinking in the following fashion:
Critics—left, right, and center—promptly attacked the relevance of the South Korean analogy for all the obvious historical reasons. Time headlined its piece: “Why Iraq Isn’t Korea”; Fred Kaplan of Slate waded in this way: “In other words, in no meaningful way are these two wars, or these two countries, remotely similar. In no way does one experience, or set of lessons, shed light on the other. In Iraq, no border divides friend from foe; no clear concept defines who is friend and foe. To say that Iraq might follow ‘a Korean model’—if the word model means anything—is absurd.” At his Informed Comment website, Juan Cole wrote, “So what confuses me is the terms of the comparison. Who is playing the role of the Communists and of North Korea?” Inter Press’s Jim Lobe quoted retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser who served two tours of duty in South Korea this way: “[The analogy] is either a gross oversimplification to try to reassure people [the Bush administration] has a long-term plan, or it’s just silly.”
None of these critiques are anything but on target. Nonetheless, the “Korea model” should not be dismissed simply for gross historical inaccuracy. There’s a far more important reason to attend to it, confirmed by four years of facts-on-the-ground in Iraq—and by a little history that, it seems, no one, not even the New York Times which helped record it, remembers.
How Enduring Are Those “Enduring Camps”?
At the moment, the Korea model is being presented as breaking news, as the next step in the Bush administration’s desperately evolving thinking as its “surge plan” surges into disaster. However, the most basic fact of our present “Korea” moment is that this is the oldest news of all. As the Bush administration launched its invasion in March 2003, it imagined itself entering a “South Korean” Iraq (though that analogy was never used). While Americans, including administration officials, would argue endlessly over whether we were in Tokyo or Berlin, 1945, Algeria of the 1950s, Vietnam of the 1960s and ’70s, civil-war torn Beirut of the 1980s, or numerous other historically distant places, when it came to the facts on the ground, the administration’s actual planning remained obdurately in “South Korea.”
The problem was that, thanks largely to terrible media coverage, the American people knew little or nothing about those developing facts-on-the-ground and that disconnect has made all the difference for years.
Let’s review a little basic history here:
You remember, of course, the flap over Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki’s February 2003 claim before a Congressional committee that “several hundred thousand troops” would be needed to effectively occupy a “liberated” Iraq. For that statement, the Pentagon civilian leadership and allied neocons laughed him out of the room and then out of town. Sagely pointing out that there was no history of “ethnic strife” in Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed Shinseki’s estimate “wildly off the mark.” His boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, concurred. “Far off the mark,” he said and, when the general retired a few months later, pointedly did not attend the ceremony. After all, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were planning to take and occupy Iraq in a style that would be high-tech and, in manpower terms, lean and mean. Given an administration-wide belief that the Iraqis would greet American troops as liberators or, at least, make them at home in their country, they expected the occupation to proceed smoothly—on a “Korea model” basis, in fact.
Here’s what Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks wrote in Fiasco, his bestselling book about the occupation, on the administration’s expectations that February: “[Paul] Wolfowitz told senior Army officers ... he thought that within a few months of the invasion the U.S. troop level in Iraq would be thirty-four thousand, recalled [Johnny] Riggs, the Army general then at Army headquarters. Likewise, another three-star general, still on active duty, remembers being told to plan to have the U.S. occupation force reduced to thirty thousand troops by August 2003. An Army briefing a year later also noted that that number was the goal ‘by the end of the summer of 2003.’ ”
At present, approximately 37,000 American troops are garrisoned in South Korea. In other words, the original plan, in manpower terms, was for a Korea-style occupation of Iraq. But where were those troops to stay? The Pentagon had been pondering that, too—and here’s where the New York Times has forgotten its own history. On April 19, 2003, soon after American troops entered Baghdad, Times reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt had a striking front-page piece headlined, “Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq.” It began:
The Pentagon, that is, arrived in Baghdad with at least a four-base strategy for the long-term occupation of the country already on the drawing boards. These were to be mega-bases, essentially fortified American towns on which those 30,000-40,000 troops could hunker down for a South-Korean-style eternity. The Pentagon was officially not looking for “permanent basing,” as it slyly claimed, but “permanent access.” (And on this verbal dodge, an administration that has constantly redefined reality to fit its needs has ducked its obvious desire for, and plans for, “permanency” in Iraq. As Tony Snow put the matter this way only the other day, “U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and ‘the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation.’ ")
When the reporting of Schmitt and Shanker came up in a Rumsfeld news conference, the story was essentially denied ("I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. ...") and then disappeared from the New York Times for four years (and most of the rest of the media for most of that time). It did not, however, disappear from Pentagon planning. Quite the contrary, the Pentagon began doling out the contracts and the various private builders set to work. By late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer “tasked with facilities development” in Iraq, was quoted in a prestigious engineering magazine speaking proudly of several billion dollars already being sunk into base construction ("the numbers are staggering"). Bases were built in profusion—106 of them, according to the Washington Post, by 2005 (including, of course, many tiny outposts).
For a while, to avoid the taint of that word “permanent,” the major American bases in Iraq were called “enduring camps” by the Pentagon. Five or six of them are simply massive, including Camp Victory, our military headquarters adjacent to Baghdad International Airport on the outskirts of the capital, Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad (which has air traffic to rival Chicago’s O’Hare), and Al-Asad Air Base in the western desert near the Syrian border. These are big enough to contain multiple bus routes, huge PXs, movie theaters, brand-name fast-food restaurants, and, in one case, even a miniature golf course. At our base at Tallil in the south, in 2006, a mess hall was being built to seat 6,000, and that just skims the surface of the Bush administration’s bases.
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Leefeller, June 16, 2007 at 8:57 am #
#78408 by Marshall
You have anwsered my question.
Thanks
Report thisBy Marshall, June 15, 2007 at 5:29 pm #
#78324 by Leefeller on 6/15 at 10:38 am
I’m not sure which degredations you’re talking about. We were discussing our troop presence in other countries - are you referring to domestic issues?
Report thisBy Leefeller, June 15, 2007 at 10:38 am #
Marshall,
I have not returned to this post for some time, it looks as if you have been busy.
Report thisSome of us believe our rights have been taken away from us, we feel the degradation of the Constitution is cause for concern and our personal liberties are threatened. . Would I be safe, in saying you do not agree.
By Bukko in Australia, June 14, 2007 at 8:51 pm #
Oz is a great place to “holiday” (as they call a vacation here) Marshall, and unlike the U.S., you don’t have to worry about getting shot. If you’re in Melbourne, be sure to take the 19 tram up to Sydney Road in Brunswick for a Lebanese pastry at Balha’s and some Turkish food at the al-Asya restaurant. You’ll see a suburb (as they call neighbourhoods here) where Muslims predominate and women wear headscarves, but whiteys like me can diddley-bop right along.
Two more things—you don’t need to send me a “America is the root of all evil” card. I have three already, mate! And if you want to strike up a conversation with any Aussie, just slag off George Bush in a loud American accent. It’ll get you a “good onya” in no time. But then again, I’ve found that to be the case everywhere in the world that I’ve traveled.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 14, 2007 at 3:30 pm #
#77892 by Bukko in Australia on 6/14 at 1:51 am
Bukko - thanks for your opinion, but I don’t drive an SUV.
Your membership card for the “US is the root of all evil” America haters club is in the mail, so look for it soon. In the meantime, enjoy Austraila (whose govt. supports the US efforts in the ME). I’ll probably be coming to Australia soon to spend some of my hard earned tourist dollars and enjoy some vacation time. Take care, mate!
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, June 14, 2007 at 1:51 am #
Marshal: I’m with Nagarya on this. The U.S. is not some innocent party. It’s like a fat, drunken bully at a bar, pushing, pushing, pushing someone weaker, hoping they’ll take a swing so then the U.S. can whip out its gun and shoot the weaker one. What you warmongers don’t realise is that the bar (the world) is full of other people (the other countries of the world) who have just seen the bully brutalise someone else (Iraq). And they remember all the other brutalities the U.S. has done (Central America during the 1980s, Chile in the ‘70s, South Vietnam and Cambodia during the ‘60s, so many other nations with governments overthrown and leaders assassinated...)
If you get your wish, for another war, it will be the U.S. vs the entire world. And although America might have the nuclear power to kill everyone—including its own people—it does not have the money. It will be quite simple for Russia and China to pull the financial rug out from under the U.S. and make the big Yankee dollar as worthless as a scrap of toilet paper. The U.S. is sitting on a financial house of cards, and the war against it will be fought with currency, not high explosives.
How many euros do you have in your pocket to buy petrol with, mate? Because when Russia stops accepting dolars for oil, and large other parts of the oil-producing world follow suit, are you going to burn greenbacks in your SUV? How many renminbi are tucked under your mattress to buy all the things you need that are now made in China? Because when the Chinese call in their T-bills, and the U.S. government defaults, you’re not going to be getting cheap plastic crap from Guangdong any more. And all the U.S. factories have been disassembled and moved there.
I almost hope you get your wish, Marshall. Let the U.S. lob a few bombs into Tehran and touch off World War IV—the U.S. against everyone. The fascist madness must be stopped, and only a complee collapse of the American economy will do it. I say “almost” because it would quickly make life worse for millions of non-bloodlusting Americans, and eventually affect me too. Luckily, when I emigrated from America, my wife and I moved almost all our assets into other currencies and precious metals. We could see what was coming from the death-worshipers who lying call themselves “the culture of life.” People like you.
Good luck to you, son. If you get what you wish for, you’ll need it.
Report thisBy JNagarya, June 14, 2007 at 12:38 am #
#77391 by Marshall on 6/12 at 7:40 pm
(4 comments total)
#77337 by Leefeller on 6/12 at 10:09 am
Sabre rattling happens all the time and doesnt lead to war. I think that when the world suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and lying about it, that Iran abducts British NATO soldiers from legal waters, and supplies weapons to insurgents and the Taliban which kill US troops, a little sabre rattling is justified. Do you not?
I think that when the US is supplying WMDs to Saddam Hussein to be used against Iran, and lying about it, lies itself into illegally invasding and occupying non-threatening Iraq, engages in war crimes such as disappearances and torture, and lies against Iran in effort to establish excuse to attack Iran, then Iran has as much right to develop and possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent against such attack as do such as Pakistan, India, and the US.
Correct?
When you provoke a person, then accuse the provoked person of “starting it,” you are lying. More, you are contradicting the fundamental values you are falsely claiming to protect.
Oh, right: you’re one of those “spontaneous amnesia” anti-American Republican’ts: “forget” the underlying facts in order to pretend to be oh-so-innocent.
The US overthrew the democratically-elected gov’t of Iran in 1954, and in its place installed the dictator Shah, who—with the direct assistance of the US—established and trained a secret police force which engaged in torture and murder against the Iranian people. So _Iran_ is in the wrong in mistrusting the US?
When you demand “fair play” by others while refusing to play fair, you are the very scum you call eveyone else. And obviously not in a position to be dictating, as example, morality.
Report thisBy Novista, June 13, 2007 at 7:22 am #
Iraq = WMD
WMD = Dubya’s Massive Delusion
Anyway, what’s 4, 5, 15 or 100+ permanent bases in Iraq when we have 737 acknowledged bases in 130 overseas countries?
Report thisBy Marshall, June 12, 2007 at 1:10 pm #
#77337 by Leefeller on 6/12 at 10:09 am
Sabre rattling happens all the time and doesn’t lead to war. I think that when the world suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and lying about it, that Iran abducts British NATO soldiers from legal waters, and supplies weapons to insurgents and the Taliban which kill US troops, a little sabre rattling is justified. Do you not?
Report thisBy Leefeller, June 12, 2007 at 10:09 am #
77182 by Marshall
Thanks Marshall for your response.
But I know of no attempt to place US forces in Iran - what are you referring to? Guess, I was referring to the saber rattling from our government, the warships off the coast of Iran, and the actions of the president, since he announced himself The war president.
As you say, Se la vi.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, June 11, 2007 at 10:10 pm #
Why would anyone believe an adminstration that has been openly lying since the very beginnning?
There’s a cover story, then there is the deed.
Actually, they have been slowly preparing for War with Iran, and those bases are part of the stategy.
The removal of general Pace is not because he will have a hard time being confirmed.
It’s because they don’t want him up on the hill, talking about just how bad it is.
He’s been a barrier to a nuclear strike on Iran, so instead they’ll put in a born-again team player.
Do you think the Senate will catch on?
Report thisBy Marshall, June 11, 2007 at 7:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#77010 by Leefeller on 6/11 at 8:18 am
“If I recall, we were not invited into Iraq or Afghanistan and now Iran? I see a pattern here, we attack and set up governments to be invited. “
We were “invited” into Afghanistan as soon as the Taliban began training AQ fighters to attack the US, which they did on 9/11. Unless you’re suggesting we should have left the Taliban in place?
The current government in Iraq has indeed invited us into the country, whatever you may think of the legitimacy of the previous govt.. But I know of no attempt to place US forces in Iran - what are you referring to?
“Iraq was set up by us from the beginning and became naughty”
Actually, Iraq was established by the British in 1920. Saddam later took power as the result of the resignation of then President Ahmed Hassan Al-Bakr, without help from the US. We indeed became an ally of Saddam until he began using chemical weapons, then we became an enemy. This is how political alliances work I’m afraid - sometimes enemies become friends, and somtimes friends become enemies. Se la vi.
“Not sure if I am taking your post out of context, but I disagree with your quote anyway.”
No - I think you got the context right. But I disagree with the logic of your response.
Report thisBy loki1967, June 11, 2007 at 7:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This just proves the whole Iraq effort is about money. Stealing tax payer money to fund friends of Bush and Cheney at the expense of a whole country...Iraq. If I was Jesus I sure wouldn’t allow any of the NeoCons or Bush into heaven.
Funny Bush gave a walking stick with the words Thou Shall Not Murder to the Pope.
Report thisBy Marshall, June 11, 2007 at 7:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#76982 by Verne Arnold on 6/11 at 3:57 am
“My goodness! Such mis-statements of history. We supplied bin Laden with Stingers to defeat the Soviets. “
I never said we didn’t. What I said was that his defeat of the Soviets emboldened him to turn against the regional powers he dispises and the western powers that oppose him.
“Bin Laden is totally pissed because we have troops stationed in Saudia Arabia (his country).”
If that were his reason for hating us, then he’d our friend now because we no longer have troops in Saudi Arabia. OBL hates the Saudi govt. as much as he hates the west. In addition, AQ is not a centralized group that marches to a single ideology or logic. It is a terrorist group bent on destroying other global powers and establishing its own Islamist government in their place.
“I doubt he ever considered a pan-regional Islamist state, whatever that is.”
Well then I’m officially removing your doubt, because he’s stated this on numerous occasions and is already attempting to do so in Iraq with the Islamic State of Iraq, which coincides with his stated intentions, to “unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs.”
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
But honestly, the fact that you still think the US has troops in SA diminishes your credibility here, so I’m not expecting that my conversation with you will go much farther. I don’t mean this as a personal attack, just an observation.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 11, 2007 at 6:13 pm #
“Learning from our experiences and history would be more prudent.”
Ahh, but our voters preference for candidates who won’t change their positions come hell-or-high water is in full control. We consider it a matter of character. Those who actually learn from their mistakes, and change a position are derided as “flip-floppers”. We didn’t get Bush/Cheney because of some nefarious plot to steal our freedoms, but because of the collective foolishness of the American people.
Report thisBy Dale Headley, June 11, 2007 at 11:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The American Empire will ultimately meet the same fate as the Roman Empire and the British Empire: hubris, overextension, and moral decay.
Report thisBy Hammo, June 11, 2007 at 8:42 am #
As Engelehardt and many others have indicated (including Bush-Cheney administration insiders) the publicly stated face of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a cover for other objectives.
One of the main objectives reportedly was to establish a permanent US presence in Iraq to obtain oil and provide a military platform in the region.
Food for thought in . . .
“‘Mistakes’ or ‘plans’ in Iraq, War on Terror?”
http://www.populistamerica.com/mistakes_or_plans_in_ir aq_war_on_terror
Report thisBy Leefeller, June 11, 2007 at 8:18 am #
Marshall,
Addressing your quote below, when you say:
But the US has every right to maintain a presence in any country that invites it to do so.
If I recall, we were not invited into Iraq or Afghanistan and now Iran? I see a pattern here, we attack and set up governments to be invited.
Learning from our experiences and history would be more prudent. Iraq was set up by us from the beginning and became naughty, so once again we attacked and establish a puppet government. The failures of our policy beg change.
Not sure if I am taking your post out of context, but I disagree with your quote anyway.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 11, 2007 at 7:00 am #
“How much more will it take before those who support this administration admit to being dupped?”
It is inconeiveable that someone I’d like to “drink a bear with” would ever try to deceive me!
Report thisBy Ben, June 11, 2007 at 6:44 am #
“Troop surge” for military escalation
“Enduring Camps” for permanent bases
“Over the horizon”, a term that implies a geographic dissociation where clearly, no such dissociation was ever intended.
How much more will it take before those who support this administration admit to being dupped?
Frankly, if “we the people” don’t stand up against the obvious deception perpetrated by this disreputable administration, then we deserve whatever horrors result from our complaisance.
Report thisBy Jack Williams, June 11, 2007 at 5:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Most (I thing) believes we will not leave Iraq for many years to come, it the OIL stupid!!!
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, June 11, 2007 at 3:57 am #
#76953 by Marshall on 6/11 at 5:20 pm
#76938 by Enemy of State on 6/10 at 9:45 pm
Enemy,
“I would argue that you have the cause and effect reversed. Bin Laden declared jihad on the western world because he was emboldened by his success in kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan and believes he can establish a pan-regional Islamist state covering the middle east, with the eventual goal of expanding westward.”
My goodness! Such mis-statements of history. We supplied bin Laden with Stingers to defeat the Soviets. With Stingers’ the Mujadheen could defeat Soviet airpower...and did. We were allies of bin Laden. But:
Bin Laden is totally pissed because we have troops stationed in Saudia Arabia (his country). This he has stated! This he has railed against. I doubt he ever considered a pan-regional Islamist state, whatever that is.
Once again we have turned a powerful ally into an enemy.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, June 11, 2007 at 3:23 am #
Perhaps. May be - more bad news for Bush.
Sure! Like George Bush even gives a flying crap about any of this. His work is done. He’s good as gone.
This piece makes it sound a little like the tax funded American military propaganda machine had nothing to do with the news media failing to report these multibillion-dollar bases to the American people. Just didn’t think to mention it I guess. “Shucks, I knew there was something else I wanted to writeabout all those years”. If the entirety of the American news media is as profoundly retarded as this piece depicts, they need to be forcibly institutionalized before they hurt themselves. Would calling the media Complicit be too harsh? How about enduringly enabling?
Some things are already clear, and without any help from those legions of scrupulous reporters. The American taxpayer is screwed. The average Iraqi citizen is screwed. Grunts in the military are screwed. Free speech is screwed. Any hint of trust for media or government is screwed.
Report thisAnd the likes of Halliburton are celebrating the most glorious of victories.
By Marshall, June 10, 2007 at 11:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#76938 by Enemy of State on 6/10 at 9:45 pm
Enemy,
I would argue that you have the cause and effect reversed. Bin Laden declared jihad on the western world because he was emboldened by his success in kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan and believes he can establish a pan-regional Islamist state covering the middle east, with the eventual goal of expanding westward. It’s what he’s said afterall. That and numerous other reasons he’s given that, if we were to worry about them all, we’d be a shrinking violet afraid to establish a presence anywhere… including our own country.
Blowback is overrated. They’re plenty motivated as it is because they believe this to be a religious cause. But the US has every right to maintain a presence in any country that invites it to do so (unless you think OBL owns the ME). If we’d abandonded South Korea because the North threatened a secular “jihad” on us, that would have been pretty short sighted (and the North was a government - OBL isn’t even that). Luckily, we didn’t - and we’d be equally short sighted to think that removing ourselves from the ME will placate OBL or his fascistic successors.
Report thisBy Nitro, June 10, 2007 at 10:37 pm #
I suppose if anyone believes that the permanent bases in Iraq will be like S. Korea, will also buy the Bushit administrations policies of everything else the lieing bastards sell us. Of coarse while they’re waving our American Flag on how they plan to save the world, our troops are in real jeopardy.
Of coarse you all know that as soon as King Bushit gets the “privatization” of 80% of Iraq’s oil signed in blood, we’ll HAVE to have these permanent bases there to protect our 80% corporate interest in Iraq. I mean, we wouldn’t want anyone coming to Iraq and stealing the 80% of their oil we are trying to steal would we? What a deal ! We take 80, you get 20.
I’m sure America would go for someone stealing 80% of some of our resources wouldn’t we? WE let them steal about 80% of our jobs and factories didn’t we? So why not? The Bushit family regime isn’t going to give up till Jr. & daddy are the New World Order leaders.
So let the Sheeple of the United States let King George II have bases all over the world. In fact, I think we should start calling the “Decider Guy” Mr. Dick-Tater Guy. King George II Dick-Tater. That has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?
And as long as we have the consumation of Corporation and State, you could have the 52nd party, and we’d still have the same cluster f__k we have now, only 100 times worse. Evidently until we pull the pants down on all the Government Representatives, and either cut the head of the beasts off, or pull their brains out of the other side, (depending on which day of the week it is) this country is doomed by the evident Anti-Christ in office now and all his little demons.
Of all the candidates available to vote for so far this next election, I think Larry the Cable Guy would make a better President than anyone else running for the position of “The New Decider Guy or Gal.”
Boy, if this country isn’t ready for a 2nd Revolution, I don’t know what is.
To a Better Day,
HokeHey !
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, June 10, 2007 at 10:21 pm #
I agree with your take on the “permanent” bases situation, Enemy, but what I fear is that they and the billion-dollar Baghdad embassy will become a justification to stay in Iraq. “We built these things, and we can’t abandon them!”
They will HAVE to be abandoned, under fire, but they will become a cudgel with which to beat the people who actually give the order to retreat. “The Democratic Party wasted ALL THAT MONEY that was spent for the embassy!” BS like that won’t play with the reality-based community, but as the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections showed, a large part of the American population is not in that community.
As for the Iraqi “government” voting to send the American forces out, I doubt they would do that. For quislings like Maliki, that would be signing their death warrants, because with the cordon of mercenary security no longer protecting them, they’d soon be seen on videos getting their heads sawed off. The kurds won’t vote for it, because they’ve got it relatively good. The Sunnis won’t vote for it because they’d be genocided by the Shia. There are factions within the Shia, and I suspect the pro-Iranian faction wants the U.S. to stay around to further weaken America’s army, and to avoid having a totally collapsed state whose troubles would spill further into Iran. Plus, the entire alleged government is nothing but a bunch of puppets, people squabbling over control of a stateroom on the Titanic as it’s sinking.
There is no good way out of Iraq. It will only end with massive bloodshed and misery, in horrible ways that even I cannot imagine, and I’ve got a damn good imagination!
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm #
Marshall,
Many of our overseas bases have been worthwhile. Bases in major Middle Eastern countries are the source of a huge amount of blowback. Bin Laden declared Jihad on us, because of the now abandoned Saudi bases. Bases in Iraq create at least as much anti-American sentiment as those Saudi bases, probably much much more. They will merely insure that we have a highly motivated opponent in the War on Terror for a long time. Perhaps thats the reason, we want them?
Report thisBy Marshall, June 10, 2007 at 9:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a long article about a policy that, as the article points out, has been in place from the start. Of course, there’s no discussion of why we might actually want “over the horizon” bases - for which there are plenty of good reasons. The article mentions our base in Saudi Arabia, but doesn’t mention that this base was removed after the fall of Saddam’s regime. In fact, it was removed precisely BECAUSE of the fall of Saddam as its only reason for existence was to provide a staging ground for US no-fly enforcement.
Let’s leave aside the issue of whether our presence in South Korea has been effective and worthwhile… it obviously HAS. It’s protected a now flourishing ally from a certified wacko in the north and his vast armada of weapons arrayed against it. This article starts with the assumption that a US presence abroad is bad… as though that’s a given. Well it’s not. Our bases abroad serve our interests as well as those of the countries that volunteer to host them.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 10, 2007 at 8:58 pm #
bukko:
Actually assuming we plan to use the (temporary?) infrastructure on these bases long term, a strategy that has been termed “Occupation Lite”. This doesn’t seem very feasible, certainly not if the Iraqis decide to get rid of us. Even lacking that, our military has already been severely weakened. I think truthdig readers are familar with the casualties, broken equipment, and lowering of recruitment standards. Lesser known, but more importantly the junior/middle level officer corps is taking early retirement at an alarming rate. An army with poor recruitment standards, and very few experienced officiers, is not going to be very competent. The commitment is unsustainable -even if the politics don’t put an end to it, an incapable military will.
Actually I hope that if the Iraqis decide to throw us out, they can get their government to ask us to leave. Our pledge to honor that request, plus the overwhelming desire of our population to be done with this fiasco, would almost certainly be sufficient to get us to withdraw. The most Bush can do is to run out the clock, until the next president takes office.
Report thisBy DennisD, June 10, 2007 at 8:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It isn’t the Great American “disconnect”, Washington D.C. “hung up” on the American citizen almost half a century ago. When was the last time we got any information out of D.C. that hasn’t been spun, sanitized or an outright lie. Bring on a third and fourth party if necessary. Anything to get us out of this cycle of deception aided and abetted by our own media.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, June 10, 2007 at 7:58 pm #
Right you are, all the commenters who point out that the permanent bases issue has been talked about for months and years on blogs, left-wing publications and also Air America Radio. Inner circles of the government and military certainly know about it, because they’re the ones building the bases. The only place where permanent bases hasn’t been made an issue is in the so-called “mainstream media,” in other words, the propaganda arm of corporate fascism. The truth is out there, if people want to see it. Trouble is, America is a nation of sheeple who eat what they’re fed from the trough.
This dream of permanent bases is going to collide with reality, though. It’s not like they can build the bases and there they will sit, for 50 years. They U.S. military is building a bunch of Khe Sanhs. That was the name of a hilltop isolated deep in enemy-controlled territory in South Vietnam, where a firebase was famously beseiged in 1968 at a cost of hundreds of America troops and thousands of Vietnamese attackers. The U.S. Marines held the North Vietnamese off for months, finally relieved the base, then abandoned it. All that death for nothing…
And these permanent bases will be under constant attack. The Iraqi insurgents have a new tactic of blowing up highway bridges. It’s Warfare 101, cut off your enemy’s supply lines. That’s the future for American forces in Iraq, to have to battle constantly, needing every bullet, bite of food and drop of water trucked in through hundreds of miles of hostile territory. And it will inevitably end in defeat, just as it did for the Crusaders. The U.S. had a chance to withdraw with victory shortly after the invasion, had a chance to withdraw with a pretence of honour after the Baker-Hamilton report, but now it will only leave after it has been ground down in a war of attrition.
In short, the permanent bases aren’t.
Report thisBy ctbrandon, June 10, 2007 at 6:50 pm #
Actually, there is nothing wrong with the two parties we have. It’s the people IN them that are the problem! We need to get RID OF the elite on both sides and look at real candidates. How would you like the ability to choose between Ron Paul and Mike Gravel in 2008? I for one think that 28 years with a Bush/Clinton White House is enough. We could make it happen. But we need to start working together right now. If not, Hillary will serve 8 years, then Jeb will take over. And the Clinton/Bush meter will jump to a staggering 44 years or presidential power. And we thought we didn’t have a Royal Crown. HA.
Brandon
Report thishttp://www.actforyourself.org
By FrostedFlakes, June 10, 2007 at 6:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Faith, you are so right! It is time for at least a third party in this country. Also, these permanent bases were actually half of the true justification for occupying Iraq. And isn’t it convenient that they are strategically positioned near the main oil wells and surrounding borders.
Report thisBy QuyTran, June 10, 2007 at 5:59 pm #
There’ll have more rapes, more killings, more social vices....
Report thisBy DMK, June 10, 2007 at 5:15 pm #
To Faith,
Report thisAMEN to a third party, the two we have are too corrupt. How about the “Common Sense” party?
By Tom Doff, June 10, 2007 at 4:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The big question for the freely elected national Iraqi government is now:
What design and color scheme should they choose as their 51st state flag?
(Subject, of course, to ‘modification’ by their US ‘advisors’)
Report thisBy faith, June 10, 2007 at 4:46 pm #
The issue that the U.S. has been spending millions and millions of dollars building a permanent base in Iraq is not new news. We bloggers have raising the question repeatedly for several years. No one is so naive that they could not see what was happening. Many of us wrote our representatives and asked why the millions were being spent for the permanent structures - no straightforward answer.
I am afraid it is time for a third party in this nation. Both Republicans and Democrats appear to have sold their respective allegiances to the lobbiests and the corporations so that those same elected politicos can fund expensive media campaigns for future elections. A sad period in America’s history indeed.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 10, 2007 at 3:12 pm #
Tom, maybe you can help to clarify this issue. Permanent US bases were alleged and discussed over at intel-dump.com a month or two back. For those unfamilar with the site, it is primarily ex-military, and is nearly as anti-Bush as truthdig. Virtually all of the Iraq veterans said all US bases in Iraq that they had seen looked extremely temporary. So I am pretty sceptical of this sudden flurry of reports of longstanding largescale permanent base construction. That sort of thing just can’t be hidden.
I’ll grant that the humongous embassy building is endeniable. I’d like to see hard evidence of the permanent character of the base infrastructure.
It does look like the current Friedman unit (period of time before a given Iraq strategy is seen to fail) is about over, and the administration is likely trying to come up with the next miracle strategy. Perhaps this “Korean strategy” is the trial balloon for the that.
Report this