Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Planet Pentagon: How the Department of Defense Came to Own the Earth, Seas and Skies

By Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 13, 2007.


The Pentagon's holdings include more than 120,000 square kilometers of land, and has trillions in assets and liabilities. How did a government agency get such an enormous appetite?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Nick Turse

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal, championed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq in exchange for bipartisan Congressional support for the long-term (read: more or less permanent) garrisoning of that country. The troops are to be tucked away on "large bases far from Iraq's major cities." This plan sounded suspiciously similar to one revealed by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times on April 19, 2003, just as U.S. troops were preparing to enter Baghdad. Headlined "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq," it laid out a U.S. plan for:

a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to.... perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.
Shortly thereafter, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, denied any such plans: "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting..." -- and, while the bases were being built, the story largely disappeared from the mainstream media.

Even with the multi-square mile, multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art Balad Air Base and Camp Victory thrown in, however, the bases in Gates' new plan will be but a drop in the bucket for an organization that may well be the world's largest landlord. For many years, the U.S. military has been gobbling up large swaths of the planet and huge amounts of just about everything on (or in) it. So, with the latest Pentagon Iraq plans in mind, take a quick spin with me around this Pentagon planet of ours.

Garrisoning the Globe

In 2003, Forbes magazine revealed that media mogul Ted Turner was America's top land baron -- with a total of 1.8 million acres across the U.S. The nation's ten largest landowners, Forbes reported, "own 10.6 million acres, or one out of every 217 acres in the country." Impressive as this total was, the Pentagon puts Turner and the entire pack of mega-landlords to shame with over 29 million acres in U.S. landholdings. Abroad, the Pentagon's "footprint" is also that of a giant. For example, the Department of Defense controls 20% of the Japanese island of Okinawa and, according to Stars and Stripes, "owns about 25 percent of Guam." Mere land ownership, however, is just the tip of the iceberg.

In his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson opened the world's eyes to the size of the Pentagon's global footprint, noting that the Department of Defense (DoD) was deploying nearly 255,000 military personnel at 725 bases in 38 countries. Since then, the total number of overseas bases has increased to at least 766 and, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, may actually be as high as 850. Still, even these numbers don't begin to capture the global sprawl of the organization that unabashedly refers to itself as "one of the world's largest 'landlords.'"

The DoD's "real property portfolio," according to 2006 figures, consists of a total of 3,731 sites. Over 20% of these sites are located on more than 711,000 acres outside of the U.S. and its territories. Yet even these numbers turn out to be a drastic undercount. For example, while a 2005 Pentagon report listed U.S. military sites from Antigua and Hong Kong to Kenya and Peru, some countries with significant numbers of U.S. bases go entirely unmentioned -- Afghanistan and Iraq, for example.

In Iraq, alone, in mid-2005, U.S. forces were deployed at some 106 bases, from the massive Camp Victory, headquarters of the U.S. high command, to small 500-troop outposts in the country's hinterlands. None of them made the Pentagon's list. Nor was there any mention of bases in Jordan on that list --or in the 2001-2005 reports either. Yet that nation, as military analyst William Arkin has pointed out, allowed the garrisoning of 5,000 U.S. troops at various bases around the country during the build-up to the war in Iraq. In addition, some 76 nations have given the U.S. military access to airports and airfields -- in addition to who knows where else that the Pentagon forgot to acknowledge or considers inappropriate for inclusion in its list.

Even without Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the more than 20 other nations that, Arkin noted in early 2004, were "secretly or quietly providing bases and facilities," the available statistics do offer a window into a bloated organization bent on setting up franchises across the globe. According to 2005 documents, the Pentagon acknowledges 39 nations with at least one U.S. base, stations personnel in over 140 countries around the world, and boasts a physical plant of at least 571,900 facilities, though some Pentagon figures show 587,000 "buildings and structures." Of these, 466,599 are located in the United States or its territories. In fact, the Department of Defense owns or leases more than 75% of all federal buildings in the U.S.

According to 2006 figures, the Army controls the lion's share of DoD land (52%), with the Air Force coming in second (33%), the Marine Corps (8%) and the Navy (7 %) bringing up the rear. The Army is also tops in total number of sites (1,742) and total number of installations (1,659). But when it comes to "large installations," those whose value tops $1,584 billion, the Army is trumped by the Air Force, which boasts 43 mega-bases compared to the Army's 39. The Navy and Marines possess only 29 and 10, respectively. What the Navy lacks in big bases of its own, however, it more than makes up for in borrowed foreign naval bases and ports -- some 251 across the globe.

Diversification

Land and large installations, however, are not all that the Defense Department owns. Until relatively recently, the U.S. Navy operated its own dairy, complete with a herd of Holsteins. Even though it did get rid of those cows in 1998, it kept the 865-acre farm tract in Gambrills, Maryland, and now leases it to Horizon Organic Dairy.

While it doesn't have a dairy, the Army still operates stables -- such as the John C. McKinney Memorial Stables where many of the 44 horses from its ceremonial Caisson Platoon live. It also has a big farm (the Large Animal Research Facility). In fact, the Pentagon owns hundreds of thousands of animals -- from rats to dogs to monkeys. In addition to an unknown number of animals used for unexplained "other purposes," in 2001 alone, the DoD utilized 330,149 creatures for various types of experimentation.

Then, there's the equipment the DoD owns, loads of it. For instance, it is the unlikely owner of "over 2,050 railcars, know[n] as the Defense Freight Rail Interchange Fleet." The DoD also reportedly ships 100,000 sea containers each year and spends $800 million annually on domestic cargo, primarily truck and rail shipments. And when it comes to trucks, the Army, alone, has a fleet of 12,700 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (huge, eight-wheeled vehicles used to supply ammunition, petroleum, oils, and lubricants to other combat vehicles and weapons systems in the field) and 120,000 Humvees. All told, according to a 2006 Pentagon report, the DoD had a total of at least "280 ships, 14,000 aircraft, 900 strategic missiles, and 330,000 ground combat and tactical vehicles."

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the DoD's largest combat support agency (with operations in 48 of the 50 states and 28 foreign countries) boasts: "If America's forces eat it, wear it, maintain equipment with it, or burn it as fuel.... DLA probably provides it." In fact, the DLA claims that it "manages" some 5.2 million items and maintains an inventory, in its Defense Distribution Depots (which stretch from Italy and Japan to Korea and Kuwait), valued at $94.1 billion.

The DLA runs the Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC) which stores 42 "strategic and critical materials" -- from zinc, lead, cobalt, chromium, and mercury (more than 9.7 million pounds of it in 2005) to precious metals such as platinum, palladium, and even industrial diamonds -- at 20 locations across the U.S. With a stockpile valued at over $1.5 billion and $5.7 billion in sales of excess commodities since 1993, the DNSC claims that there is "no private sector company in the world that sells this wide range of commodities and materials."

All told, the Department of Defense owns up to having "[o]ver $1 trillion in assets [and] $1.6 trillion in liabilities." This is, no doubt, a gross underestimate given the DoD's historic penchant for flawed book-keeping and the fact that, according to a study by its own inspector general, it cannot even account for at least $1 trillion dollars in money spent -- or perhaps, according to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as much as $2.3 trillion. Cooking the books and stashing cash is fitting enough for an American organization, in the age of Enron, that thinks of itself not just as a government agency but, in its own words, as "America's oldest company, largest company, busiest company and most successful company." In fact, on its website, the DoD makes the point that it easily bests Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and General Motors in terms of budget and staff.

It's Got the Whole World in Its Hands

In addition to assembling a dizzying array of assets, from tungsten to tubas -- in 2005 alone, it spent more than $6 million on sheet music, musical instruments, and accessories -- the Pentagon owns a great deal of housing: 300,000 units worldwide. By its own admission, it is also a slumlord par excellence -- with an inventory of "180,000 inadequate family housing units." According to the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Installations & Environment):
Approximately 33 percent of all [military] families live on-base, in housing that is often dilapidated, too small, lacking in modern facilities -- almost 49 percent (or 83,000 units) are substandard.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense's own home, the Pentagon, bests the Sultan of Brunei's Istana Nurul Iman palace, the largest private residence in the world -- 3,705,793 to 2,152,782 square feet of occupiable space. The DoD likes to boast that the Pentagon is "virtually a city in itself" -- with 30 miles of access highways, 200 acres of lawn space. It includes a five-acre center courtyard, 17.5 miles of corridors, 16 parking lots (with an estimated 8,770 parking spaces), seven snack bars, two cafeterias, one dining room, a post office, "credit union, travel agency, dental offices, ticket offices, blood donor center, housing referral office, and 30 other retail shops and services," a chapel, a heliport, and numerous libraries. Moreover, says the DoD, the Pentagon consumed a huge portion of its natural environment, its concrete reportedly contains "680,000 tons of sand and gravel from the nearby Potomac River."

In value, the Pentagon's other properties are almost as impressive. The combined worth of the world's two most expensive homes, the $138 million 103-room "Updown Court" in Windlesham, Surrey in the United Kingdom and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan's $135 million Aspen ski lodge don't even come close to the price tag on Ascension Auxiliary Airfield, located on a small island off the coast of St. Helena (the place of Napoleon Bonaparte's exile and death). It has an estimated replacement value of over $337 million. Other high-priced facilities include Camp Ederle in Italy at $544 million; Incirlik Air Base in Turkey at almost $1.2 billion; and Thule Air Base in Greenland at $2.8 billion; while the U.S. Naval Air Station in Keflavik, Iceland is appraised at $3.4 billion and the various military facilities in Guam are valued at more than $11 billion.

Still, to begin to grasp the Pentagon's global immensity, it helps to look, again, at its land holdings -- all 120,191 square kilometers which are almost exactly the size of North Korea (120,538 square kilometers). These holdings are larger than any of the following nations: Liberia, Bulgaria, Guatemala, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, Denmark, Georgia, or Austria. The 7,518 square kilometers of 20 micro-states -- the Vatican, Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, Andorra, Bahrain, Saint Lucia, Singapore, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Tonga -- combined pales in comparison to the 9,307 square kilometers of just one military base, White Sands Missile Range.

Downsizing?

While it has been setting up hundreds of bases across the globe to support ongoing wars, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its forces in an effort to reduce troop levels at old Cold War mega-bases and close down less strategically useful sites. Does this mean less Pentagon control in the world?

Don't bet on it. In fact, the U.S. military is exploring long-term options to dominate the planet as never before. Previously, the DoD has only maintained a moving presence on the high seas. This may change. The Pentagon is now considering -- and planning for -- future "sea-basing." No longer just a ship, a fleet, or "prepositioned material" stationed on the world's oceans, sea-bases will be "a hybrid system-of-systems consisting of concepts of operations, ships, forces, offensive and defensive weapons, aircraft, communications and logistics." The notion of such bases is increasingly popular within the military due to the fact that they "will help to assure access to areas where U.S. military forces may be denied access to support [land] facilities." After all, as a report by the Defense Science Board pointed out, "[S]eabases are sovereign [and] not subject to alliance vagaries." Imagine a future where the people of countries at odds with U.S. policies suddenly find America's "massive seaborne platforms" floating just outside their territorial waters.

With a real-estate portfolio that includes the earth and the sea, the sky would, quite literally, be the limit for the DoD. According to Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired's "Danger Room" blog, the "U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan" of 2004 outlined what "analysts call the most detailed picture since the end of the Cold War of the Pentagon's efforts to turn outer space into a battlefield.... the report makes U.S. dominance of the heavens a top Pentagon priority in the new century." As the U.S. military's outer-space policy statement puts it, "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

When you're focused on effectively controlling a planet, the idea of occupying Iraq, a country about the size of the state of California, for the next decade or five, must seem like a small thing. In practice, however, the global landlord on the Potomac has found property values in Iraq steep indeed. As all now know, it has been fought to a standstill there by modest-sized bands of guerillas lacking air power, sea power, or high-tech spy satellites in outer space. The Pentagon may be landlord to massive swaths of the globe, but from Vietnam to Laos, Beruit to Somalia, U.S. forces have also found themselves evicted by neighborhood residents from properties they were prepared to consider their own. The question remains: Will Iraq be added to the list of permanently occupied territories and take on the look of long-garrisoned South Korea as Secretary of Defense Gates and President Bush have urged -- or will it be added to a growing list of places that have effectively resisted paying the rent on Planet Pentagon?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: pentagon

Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Village Voice, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, is due out in the American Empire Project Series by Metropolitan Books in 2008.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The answer is...
Posted by: ateo on Jul 13, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Iraq will be added to the list of permanently occupied territories.

As for those "floating fortress" things, reminds me of 1984. Very cool and certainly excites the inner child in any man, but also frightening as hell.

You're talking about building floating islands of death that can practically only be destroyed by nuclear weapons (of course dominant air or sea power would easily topple them with many attacks but show me the nation that can dominate the U.S. in either). If one of them were to sink, think the equivalent of every aircraft carrier currently in the fleet sinking. 15 or 20 thousand dead, 5 billion dollars in losses.

That's always been the deterrent to building larger aircraft carriers than we currently have - putting all your eggs in one basket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The answer is... Posted by: Knowmad
Pre-empting rabid rightie spin...
Posted by: Knowmad on Jul 13, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Expect a visit from out regular rightie pests on this one; Dino (conservasaurus) and his clan: kbest, slydad, bobsays, eaglemd and whitemiddleclass(muddled)male. Actually, it may not be entirely fair to assign Dino to this pathetic group, as he does seem to be getting more of a clue the longer he spends with us, even though he still falls for insane righty nonsense all too often. And no, I shouldn't insult him by saying he's their leader - that's just too cruel.

As for the others, however, though I do my best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, read virtually any of their posts and I suspect you'll agree that they're most likely either misguided, neocon wannabes trying to impress sick degenerates like cheney, or they're trolls and/or plants, here to derail discussion through obfuscation and emotional highjacking.

It's actually a good sign these fawning, unfortunates are so earnest though, as it highlights their mounting desperation (or maybe their desperation to mount), and means our progressive sanity is winning. Cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Leader of the Pack??? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Leader of the Pack??? Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Leader of the Pack??? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pre-empting rabid rightie spin... Posted by: Conservasaurus
PNAC, PNAC, PNAC....
Posted by: Mycos on Jul 13, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why oh why does everyone guess and write and scribble theur ideas as to why Bush or Cheney or Halliburton, etc does this or that, when all you need to know in order to get the scoop right from the hoorses mouth, is to read the the PNAC website? The "RAD", a 2000 policy guideline for America is a white paper of Cheney's from '93 when he was panicking aboiut paying out a "peace dividend" at the close of the Cold war. Kristol was grabbed by Kagan, Wolfowitz and Perle, Libby, Rumsfeld, etc. and the whole Project was born as a reworked Cheney vision. Wolf-boy and his Likud masters wrote a version that American Conservative and the Christian Right could all get behind....and it's all just sitting there with their names signed to the bottom...every major player in this administration.....all there. A page-by-page detailed manual with the rationale given for every irrational policy decision that they have undertaken since assuming power.

PNAC is not dead!

It is alive and you are all ignoring it at your peril. They can and are staging a coup, one that will end when they cite martial law. A coup that started with 9/11's Patriot Act.

Wake the F**K UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PNAC, PNAC, PNAC.... Posted by: freethink7
"They" don't hate our freedoms...
Posted by: motamanx on Jul 13, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they hate our Defense Department!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Battlesea America!
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Jul 13, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the only details left to work out for these 'floating bases' is probably how many Starbucks it will have, and whether or not the Wal-Mart will be a Supercenter.

If you need a visual metaphor, picture one of those pontoon boats, overloaded with drunken hicks, that are the scourge of the nation's waterways and multiply it by 10 000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Battlesea America! Posted by: Knowmad
The Pentagon and the Accounting Fraud/Missing/Lost $2.6 Trillion
Posted by: freethink7 on Jul 13, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pentagon still cannot account for missing $2.6 trillion. That’s “Trillion” with a T. This money vanished without a trace in 2001. Accountants at the Pentagon claim that they cannot account for $2.6 trillion that has been missing for several years. Dov Zakheim (who holds dual American/Israeli citizenship) was in control of accounting at the Pentagon during the time this money went missing.

This story was and continues to be conveniently silenced/hushed-up by the mainstream media.

In testimony before the Congress on 9/10/01, Donald Rumsfeld minimized and trivialized this loss under Zakheim’s management as just a simple mistake and oversight. (Did I read that correctly, losing $2.6 trillion was due to a simple mistake?) Also, Rumsfeld made jokes and laughed about this matter during a congressional inquiry. Disgraceful.

This fraud occurred a couple of months before 9/11 tragedy. The congressional hearing was one day before September 11th tragedy. Is there some 9/11 connection to this missing 2.6 Trillion (or is this as they say just another “coincidence” in a long line of “coincidences”…….hmmmm)

….WHY DON’T AMERICANS GET ANGRY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND DEMAND ANSWERS TO THIS OBVIOUS FRAUD AND OVERT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Follow these links/sources/google for more information on this story regarding this accounting fraud at the Pentagon:

onlinejournal

militarydefenselink

BenFrankstory

judicialzakheim

iamthewitness

Google: Dov Zakheim Lost Money at Pentagon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

impeachment
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The new Cold War
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 13, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is drawing it's Iron Curtain. Note, it is the USA that is putting up this wall. A wall that will divide oil resources worldwide. A line from Georgia through the Middle East and deep into Africa in years to come.

The death toll will be unrecorded.

Note, it was the USA that created and prolonged the last Cold War. When the Russians pulled a hat-trick, ending the Cold War, Washington spent the 1990s attacking a rather sweet guy from Arkansas who had the audacity to become president. Who are these people in Washington who can't seem to do anything without attacking anyone they please, attacking and trying to bring down their own president, attacking foreign nations, etc?

Well, they are referred to as Neocons in general, Democrat or Republican. Their brokers come from the Nixon era... Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in particular. But considering how easily Washington went along with their insanity called "The War on Terror" it seems clear that US policy is locked into the old, Forever War, scenario.

Winning hearts and minds... with all the skill of Stalin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Globalization = communism
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 13, 2007 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... just a thought...

Corporations made deals (Battle of Seattle. Quebec, etc.) in secret to divide everything on Earth into markets owned by, you guessed it, corporations.

Now, as this article demonstrates, there will be military bases to protect such ownership... seemingly.

Now, the last time I heard of an all enveloping ownership that takes land, homes, and even the water from the people in general... was called communism.

I've heard the very politicians and corporate CEOs at those meeting say openly that everything from all the land on earth to the rain in the sky SHOULD be owned by corporations. Scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Location, Location, Location!!!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 13, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m not sure what we are supposed to glean from this article.. Mr Turse is stating the obvious, the US has quite a presence in the world – as if this is a shock.. Bases in other countries is actually a good thing.. speeds up forward deployment, and enhances logistics emensely.

But that said, I wonder why the article doesn’t elaborate on the base closures that took place in the 80’s and 90’s and the enormous reduction in military personnel stationed abroad!

Let me help!

There were almost 450,000 personnel abroad in 1980 compared to 200,000 in 2002 based on a Congressional budget Office Report. (not counting Iraq)


(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfmindex=5415 &type=0&sequence=2#F7)

That said, according to the 20003 Base Structure Analysis many of these bases are classified as small installations – 115 large, 115 medium and 668 small installations (tents with some fencing???).

(http://www.defenselink.mil/news /Jun2003/basestructure2003.pdf).

As far as sea basing..it’s already done… any battle group can be mission designed to incorporate such a capability.. and with aircraft carriers exceeding 100,000 tons they are already mobile bases – self contained and limited in operation only by personnel!

But a few things to remember.. In general, foreign countries, not to mention ALL the states LOVE military bases.. Democrats (except for San Francisco – home of the un- American), fight for base locations.. Anyone remember when the Military drastically reduced the number of bases – Congressmen/Senators, from both sides, were involved in “back alley” fights to keep bases in THEIR districts!

Oh, and one last point - with all the real estate, I'm glad to see the government has all these assets - no fiscal problems here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Location, Location, Location!!! Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Location, Location, Location!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Location, Location, Location!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
"You can't simultaneously prevent war while preparing for it"
Posted by: humanity101 on Jul 13, 2007 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good luck world peace! With the kind of military industrial complex we have today, those weapons are not going to just sit there. They'll be used somewhere on somebody for some reason or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's just chilling.
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jul 13, 2007 8:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, have you ever noticed the residential cruise ships...

where one can cruise the Seven Seas, legally resident in whatever country is most congenial to the shipping registration & citizen requirements.

just chilling, when you think about it...
rather like those 'private island' situations people continually buy when their fortunes begin soaring into the stratosphere...




Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!


BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are US citizens aware of how their Government is treating the people of Guam
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Jul 14, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story appeared last month at Al Jazeers.
The people of Guam have a strange status. They are classed as American citizens, but they can't vote in mainstream American elections. Why is that????

FRIDAY, JULY 06, 2007
9:56 MECCA TIME, 6:56 GMT
US building up Guam base
By Tony Birtley in Guam

The US is spending billions of dollars and moving troops in the Asia Pacific to strengthen bases in outlying US territories as part of a new defence strategy.
The Pacific island of Guam, previously considered a glorified refuelling base, has taken on a new importance to the US since September 11, 2001, and is currently being turned into a military hub.
The build-up in Guam is expected to cost $15 bn, with almost two-thirds of it going towards relocating 8,000 marines from the US base in Okinawa, Japan.
But the base in Guam, the most western territory of the United States, is not reliant on support from a foreign country, like those in Japan and South Korea.

New strategy

The island has become the lynchpin of a new military strategy designed to face any war scenario.
The F-16s fighter jets sitting at the island's Andersen air force base are part of a rotational squadron, and just one aspect of the military build-up.
On the apron, old but still operational B-52 bombers, which unleashed terrifying bombing missions in Vietnam and Iraq during the first Gulf War were standing by.
The US outpost will see a whole array of the latest military hardware including nuclear-powered Trident submarines which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and unmanned Global Hawk spy aircraft.
By next year, the base will receive the latest state-of-the-art F-22 fighter jets, reflecting Guam’s strategic defence position in a volatile part of the world.
Analysts say the Guam build-up was all about a "message of deterrent through strength" directed at North Korea and China, which has been almost doubling its military spending in recent years.
Lieutenant general Daniel Leaf, deputy commander of the US Pacific Command, said: "We are here to provide military defence and to deter aggressive activities by any group, terrorists or national entity... We want peace but we are also committed to overall well-being of the pacific community."

Locals 'terrified'

But local residents are not convinced that the US has their interests at heart.
A small group of Chamorrus, Guam's indigenous people, think that military developments on this tiny island make them a potential target.
Rumbo Chedo, a Chamorru activist, said his biggest concern were his children's safety.
"The whole of al-Qaeda and terrorists know that the military is moving here and expanding themselves," he told Al Jazeera.
Debbie Quinata, another Chamorru activist, said: "I think we really need to look at this picture and who are the terrorists because at this point they're terrifying us, they’re terrifying me, they’re terrifying my family."
In its global "war on terror" the US deploys fast patrol boats to protect oil platforms in the Gulf and to safeguard dangerous waters stretching from Taiwan to the Philippines.
For the US, the formidable combination of air and sea military power is enough to stop Asia from becoming another nightmare scenario like Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement