The debate about when the troops will be coming home, when the troops will be leaving Iraq, how many are coming, whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal etc. etc., is a sideshow. The US is in Iraq permanently although the Bush Administration will not tell you that. They are building huge military bases there (which has been their policy in general wherever they can) in order to (and in accordance with neocon philosophy) project US power throughout the Middle East. If the US was even considering withdrawing, why is KBG (formerly Kellog, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton) pouring tons and tons of concrete? Why are they building 4 super-mega-humungus bases about 20 square miles each that are as large as small cities? Why are they constructing shopping centers, roads, housing, providing all the amenities of home such as Pizza Hut and Burger King?
In an article in today's (March 24 2006) LA Times entitled: "Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay," it says:
WASHINGTON — Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.
This is the 21st century version of colonization: extending American power by virtue of building colossal military bases all over the world, but, in particular, in Iraq. So while the public debate is over whether or not we should bring the troops home and under what conditions, the administration's real intent is to base military assets there in perpetuity. The real debate should be about whether or not we will have any permanent US bases in Iraq at all thus turning it into a satellite country, a client state, of the US. Permanent US military bases in Iraq will enable the projecting of US geo-political power throughout the Middle East. As for oil, once geo-political control is established, all other assets (including oil) will be by-products of that. As early as 2004, it was reported that the US was building 14 “enduring” military bases in Iraq consisting mainly of former Iraqi military bases.
Billions of dollars are being spent on these immense bases some having several bus routes just to get around. Are billions of our tax dollars being spent foolishly? Well, they would be if we had the actual intention of “leaving” Iraq.
From CorpWatch in an article entitled "Iraq: US Digs in for the Long Haul with Base Building":
John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.
From a SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER article entitled: "Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal":
May 2005: A year ago, President Bush boldly said: 'Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.' Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances, the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.
And from TomDispatch.com:
There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -- facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency." Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases," and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report.
And Balad Air Base, the largest of these bases, is stuck "smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq:"
The base is sizeable enough to have its own "neighborhoods" including "KBR-land" (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); "CJSOTF" ("home to a special operations unit," the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by "especially high walls," and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, "an ersatz Starbucks," a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's O'Hare airport, and "a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage."
So no matter what events transpire on the ground in Iraq, the US is steadily building its enclaves to which the troops can retreat as construction is completed. The troops will withdraw not to the US but to the permanent military bases in Iraq. That way the troops can come home, but they won't be coming home. As Iraq stands up its own army, American troops will have less casualties by virtue of the fact that they will be within the perimeters of the super safe military bases. The rest of Iraq could be going to hell in a handbag, but the bases are impenetrable with miles of berms, moats and concertina wire, and the folks back home will be placated since the casualty rate will go down. America will be at the ready to provide air power. Iraqi troops will take the brunt of the IEDs.
In fact there are no plans to provide Iraqis with an Air Force. Therefore, the US will be the de facto Air Force of Iraq, and the insurrection could go on indefinitely without interfering with US interests. As long as American casualties approach zero, the American public will stop complaining and the American neocon government can get down to its business of completing, staffing and supplying its 4 mega-bases in Iraq and then projecting American geo-political power throughout the Middle East.
There is only one problem with this scenario. What if, whenever Iraq is able to form a stable government, that government wants the US out of Iraq completely, bases and all. Fat chance of that ever happening. Whatever government forms, it will be dependent on US air power to keep itself in existence. The US will seek to cut a deal to provide protection in return for its continued presence on the mega-bases. Both the eventual Iraqi government and the US public will tolerate a continued low level insurgency (IEDs and the like) since it will not really be any threat to US interests (they will not be able to attack the mega-bases) and the Iraqi government will be dependent on the US.
However, there are two larger threats to the US from its continued expansion of military bases throughout the world which, up to now, have been positioned in countries essentially friendly toward the US. There will be continued terrorism just due to the fact that US military bases are placed in Muslim countries. Remember that was Osama bin Laden's main beef: that there were US bases in Saudi Arabia.
Secondly, the US could suffer financial collapse just due to the continual expenditure of funds on militaristic adventurism which it has to increasingly borrow from overseas central bankers. No lesson has been learned from history here. This is eventually what led to the demise of the Roman Empire: continual spending on military expansion. Due to dependence on foreign central bankers to buy up US debt, the American dollar could collapse if and when these countries decide to move their assets out of dollars and into Euros, for instance. Increasingly foreigners are also snapping up US equity assets inside the US instead of buying US debt. As time goes on, foreigners will be in complete control of the US without ever firing a shot. Unfortunately, the US is in the position of being not only the world's most powerful nation but the world's largest debtor nation as well. Interestingly enough, the US needs to borrow approximately $1 billion a day almost exactly what it spends per day on the war in Iraq!
From today's (3/24/06) LA Times an update:
Here are four of the bases in Iraq for which the Bush administration has planned upgrades. Money spent through 2005 was granted through emergency spending bills since 2003:
1. Al Asad air base
By some accounts the second largest military air center in Iraq and the main supply base for troops in Al Anbar Province, which includes the insurgent strongholds of Fallouja and Ramadi. It houses about 17,000 troops, including a large contingent of Marines.
Spending: Unknown*
Bush 2006 request: $46.3 million
2. Balad air base
The U.S. military's main air transportation and supply hub in Iraq, with two giant runways. Also known as Camp Anaconda, it is the largest support base in the country, with about 22,500 troops and several thousand contractors.
Spending: $228.7 million*
Bush 2006 request: $17.8 million.
3. Camp Taji
One of the largest facilities for U.S. ground forces in Iraq, the base also serves as home to about 15,000 Iraqi security forces. It has the largest military shopping center (PX) in the country.
Spending: $49.6 million*
Bush 2006 request: None
4. Tallil air base
An increasingly important air and transportation hub, with a growing population of coalition troops and contractors. It has become a key stopping point for supply convoys moving north from Kuwait and is close to one of the Iraqi army's main training facilities.
Spending: $10.8 million*
Bush 2006 request: $110.3 million
*Through 2005
--
Sources: U.S. Central Command, Congressional Research Service, Global Security.org
That totals to $463.5 million, a figure that's far lower than actual expenditures due to the "unknown" cited above. And don't forget the half a billion being spent on the world's largest US embassy there. No one seems to know exactly how many American and Iraqi troops, contractors and others can be housed in these 4 mega-bases, but I'm sure it's upwards of 100,000. So instead of our troops coming home from Iraq, they will simply be redeployed to secure American bases in Iraq while the US announces major troop reductions in a dog and pony show for the American people. Remember those names folks: Al Asad, Balad (Anaconda), Camp Taji and Talil. They represent the continued expansion and projection of American power and dominance in the world brought to you and financed by Chinese, Indian and Arabian central bankers without whose cooperation none of this would be possible!
