Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

War on Iraq

We Must Prevent Permanent Bases in Iraq

By David Swanson, davidswanson.org. Posted December 8, 2006.


Congress passed a law banning permanent bases in Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Report suggests that Bush state we don't have long-term plans - meanwhile, construction continues.
Advertisement

Did you notice something about the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report? It recommends all sorts of changes, all of them far short of actually ending the war, but it recommends them all to the same person responsible for the disastrous situation we're in now. It doesn't suggest what Congress should do to rein in an out-of-control president. Rather, it recommends that the President do dozens of things. Here's one of them:

Recommendation 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.

Bush came close to stating this on April 13, 2004, when he said "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America." But the Iraq Study Group does, and so -- judging by other remarks and actions, does Bush. When you refuse to set a definite time for getting out, you are supporting an indefinite occupation. Robert Gates, the new Rumsfeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he thought the "war on terror," which he dishonestly connected to the War on Iraq, would last "a generation." That's pretty indefinite.

But what if Bush were to state that the United States does not seek permanent bases? How would that differ from Bush stating that he had no warning of Katrina, or that he knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that the United States does not torture, or that he planned to keep Rumsfeld on another two years?

Speaking of Rumsfeld, on February 17, 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the same Senate Armed Services Committee, said: ''We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.'' Now, in Rumsfeldspeak this probably meant that he would build temporary bases and then decide later to make them permanent, or that they would just be "enduring," which would mean permanent but not, you know, permanent -- in the same way that an "enemy combatant" is a prisoner of war without the rights of, you know, a prisoner of war. In any case, what is gained by having Bush or Rumsfeld say the words? Wouldn't it make more sense to recommend to Congress that it do something that used to be the role of Congress: namely, pass a law?

But there's the catch. Congress already has. Since the moment we entered Fiscal Year 2007 in October, every dime spent on permanent military bases in Iraq has been illegal. But no one even knows how to find out how many dimes that is. And that illustrates a broader problem. Bush not only began this war in secret with money that Congress had approved for something else, but he also immediately turned it into a permanent occupation and began constructing permanent bases. It took Congress three years to get around to cutting off the funding for more such construction, but Congress had never approved the whole idea. Neither, of course, had the Iraqis.

This past weekend there was a huge protest in Italy where a permanent U.S. military base plans to expand with the construction of a new base nearby. In South Korea it's a similar story, with the added kicker that our military is evicting townspeople, eliminating their village, and building a new base with a golf course attached. There's a global meeting planned in March in Ecuador on eliminating foreign military bases. It was U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia that enraged Osama Bin Laden. Americans pay a fortune to maintain bases all over the world, and the primary product of them is anger.

Last March, when Congress passed the "emergency" supplemental funding for the war for 2006, both houses of Congress included language banning the use of funds to build permanent bases. A Republican-run conference committee "reconciled" this agreement by deleting it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraq study group, bush

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


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:
quite easy
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 8, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be quite easy for the US to end the terrorist war: Remove all of its troops from all countries except the US. All the other peoples of the world would be so happy at this wonderous event that terrorism would fizzle and die. It would also mean the beginning of the end of fascism in the world. Oh, happy day!

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

» Oh, happy day! Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oh, happy day! Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Oh, happy day! Posted by: laoma
» Stop all foreign entanglements Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Stop all foreign entanglements Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Oppenheimer's Revenge Posted by: edith
» Chez GAZA Posted by: edith
» Good idea but.. Posted by: edith
Enforce the law
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 8, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it may seem like a difference without a distinction, I think that it is important that the 110th Congress encompass all funding for the Iraq War within the normal appropriations process.

The authorization of funding through supplemental budget requests has permitted the President and his staff to operate a war outside the constitutionally and statutorily permitted limits.

Bringing the war into the appropriations porcess would subject its cost to debate in Congress and supervision of its conduct by Congressional Committees.

This is the vital first step to extricating ourselves from the military and financial quagmire that the Administrtation has trapped us in.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

» RE: nforce the law Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: nforce the law Posted by: Lincoln fan
» OOPS! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Bases are permanent and are future headquarters for
Posted by: symcokid on Dec 8, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
each of the major US oil companies that are sharing in the privatization plans of the crude, oil that is - Black Gold and it's all ours. We won it from the Iraqi's, God wants us to have it!

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

» What is God's Percentage? Posted by: edith
» RE: What is God's Percentage? Posted by: symcokid
» RE: What is God's Percentage? Posted by: symcokid
All things magical
Posted by: Captainmagic on Dec 8, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More smoke and mirror's......more drip feeding....have you not forgotten that they sspeak with a forked tongue..(gee where have I heard that one before)......Baker Esq. was in front of your panel and they asked WHAT questions? amerika is yet to pay a heavy price for their meddling....Iraq is about to go "terminal end play" and nero is fiddling....When iraqi's come to fully realize that there is no relief column comming to the rescue they are going to focus (they have not done it yet) their anger (aim) in a much more resolute way. Be prepared for a much higher loss of your soldiers.....They are already adopting some rather leathal strategies...(not talking about IED's) One guess who taught them these strategies..you have stayed too long in the one place soldier and the Iraqi's now, know when you fart....and you are TOTALY compromised........


"LEAVE"

Captain OUT

How does the song go....Where have all the young men gone..When will you ever learn...When will you ever learn!!

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

We Must Prevent Permanent Bases in Iraq
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 8, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... *giggle* ... yea, too late.

WTF? The USA is to occupy the oil (the Iraq Report turned out to simply be a press release announcing the privatization of Iraq's Oil) and be permanently based in massive military fortresses.

This is how Washington always does things (ask Central America). Wanna "prevent bases"? Kill the liars in Washington (it's been done before ya know).

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

» the stolen oil is OURS Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: the stolen oil is OURS Posted by: Ghoulman
Democracy???
Posted by: makeadifference on Dec 8, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the US citizens think America is a democracy. A true democracy would refect the will of the people... remember? I don't remember getting the opportunity to VOTE on 14 military bases in Iraq or the gigantic (size of a city) American Embassy being built there!

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

» RE: Democracy??? What's that? Posted by: symcokid
» Outrage Fatique!? Posted by: makeadifference
» RE: Outrage Fatique!? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Democracy???
Posted by: makeadifference on Dec 8, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the US citizens think America is a democracy. A true democracy would refect the will of the people... remember? I don't remember getting the opportunity to VOTE on 14 military bases in Iraq or the gigantic (size of a city) American Embassy being built there!

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

» RE: Democracy??? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Carter's Man will get involved soon
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 8, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carter's Man Brzezinski says a lot in his writings. Look for him to also get involved more. Look for more 'involvement' in the former Soviet republics. Here's what Carter's main man has to say:

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role."
—from his book "The Grand Chessboard"

Brzezinski is a past member of the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantic Council, and the National Endowment for Democracy. He was formerly a director of the Trilateral Commission now serving only on the executive committee, and formerly a boardmember of Freedom House. He is currently a trustee and counselor for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a board member for the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya info on the advisory board of America Abroad Media and on the advisory board of Partnership for a Secure America

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

the hand is quicker than the eye
Posted by: solrev on Dec 8, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq oil was always the secondary target of the Bush plan and not even expected to be of any value for a generation. Maintaining a questionable Iraq oil supply to inflate oil prices is more important. The primary goal was always to provide a military target in Iraq for any terrorists. Bush told you people a million times we can fight them there or somewhere else. The somewhere else is Saudi Arabia, that is the oil supply being protected by permanent military targets in Iraq.

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

» RE: ah yes, "them" Posted by: Ghoulman
A Lot of this is Bullsh*t
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 8, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the United States is not expanding it's bases in Korea or Italy and the protests are very localized, unlike the universal distrust and growing hatred people in Iraq have for our nation's continued occupation. What is happening in Germany, Italy and Korea is a realignment of our base structure as we draw down our forces and consolidate our scattered bases into fewer installations.

In Korea that means moving most US forces out of the heart of Seoul. Imagine another country having bases in the US and then imagine them on the Mall in D.C. As we draw our forces down in Korea we are moving out of Seoul and closing countless bases around and near the DMZ. Camp Humphreys is being expanded (less than 3,000 acres) to allow make space for those units in downtown Seoul. A number of farmers are being relocated to allow for this expansion to take place. Given the growth in the area, the farms were doomed by commercial development if not the base expansion.

In Italy and Germany, US consolidation of it's European forces is causing similar construction in a handful of places while many long standing bases are being closed permanently. In some cases the local communities have petitioned the US Army/Air Force to reconsider the closure of the bases. This is especially true in the smaller towns that hosted US forces. Most of the closed bases are being torn down or redeveloped for the civilian community that they are located in.

The protests being mentioned in this article (Italy and Korea) are more related to NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome than anything else as far as involvement of local nationals is concerned. To compare their status and relationship with the local community with what is going on in Iraq is flat wrong. Attribute it to what you will.

The author may be uninformed, lazy, misled or could have intentionally misled the reader by this article. I do not know and it really does not matter. If the facts are this wrong regarding this part, I seriously wonder about the rest. It also makes me wonder if AlterNet is bothering to fact check the stories running on their site.

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

» Altogether different. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Altogether different. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» No, It is RIGHT ON Posted by: sofla100
» RE: No, It is RIGHT ON Posted by: NoPCZone
» Not quite Posted by: sofla100
» RE: No, It is RIGHT ON Posted by: riley
bare bases
Posted by: cinattra on Dec 8, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if we pull up stakes and close all the bases in Iraq it does not take our people long to build up bare bases. Besides that we don't need bases in Iraq to strike at Iran (remember the air attack on Afghanistan) if the President decides to end his tenure with a bang.

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

Baker to the rescue?
Posted by: willymack on Dec 8, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when has Baker been a sagacious and benevolent fixer-upper and all-around good guy? History shows him to be nothing more or less than a kissass and self-serving scumbag. I'd sooner believe a used car salesman than him. Rescue of dubya is the last thing on Baker's mind; it's the continuation of the obscene profits from the Iraq tragedy that this regime wants to maximize. Poppy bush would off dumbya in an instant if he thought it necessary. Why more people can't seem to comprehend the pure evil of this criminal gang is beyond me.

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

Can the U.S. Really Afford Permanent Occupation?
Posted by: rwa on Dec 8, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Losing War, a Failed President, a Weak Dollar: We've Been Here Before
By: by Leon Hadar

The Vietnam War and the increasing military expenditures to finance it resulted in an increased dollar outflow and accelerated inflation by the 1970s, leading to rising balance-of-payment and trade deficits...suddenly it seems that someone has produced a remake of that old horror movie.

[If] the rising populist and protectionist wing of the Democratic Party that has taken over Capitol Hill adopts policies to punish China for its "unfair" trade practices, which are supposedly responsible for the giant American trade deficit with the Chinese. The Chinese, who until now have continued to invest in the U.S. economy, thus preventing an even more dramatic and painful drop in the value of the U.S. dollar, might then have no choice but to change course.

One of the main reasons why U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke are traveling to Beijing this month is to work together with the Chinese to prevent the kind of worst-case scenario that could result from the political pressure by the Democratic trade warriors on Capitol Hill. That makes a lot of economic sense, but it doesn't deal with the geopolitical sources of the problem: the bloody and costly war in Iraq and the potential for wars with Iran and other parts of the Middle East that are going to drive U.S. military spending and the deficits into the stratosphere and put even more pressure on the dollar.

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

It's called the corporate media
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 8, 2006 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of this would be possible if the major media outlets in the US weren't the lickspittle servants of the miltiary-industrial complex. Television, radio and print newspapers are all guilty, as are the public relations firms that glue the major corporate and military conglomerates to the corporate media. We live in an advertising-propaganda-psychological operation state. This is Bush's first concern; it was Rumsfeld's first concern, and you can bet that it will also be Gate's first concern. Everything that passes their lips is informed by this media propaganda reality. When Rice gives a speech in some foreign country, her first concern is how it will be percieved by the US domestic television audience, and she makes sure she includes a few good soundbites for the networks to publicize.

A good chunk of the US population is brainwashed to accept what the 'authorities' tell them; they then repeat it verbatim - and you can tell that they are then proud of being well-informed - oh so sad. Our education system has created a nation of gullible chumps and easy marks who are highly susceptible to mass psychological manipulation strategies. The best antidote? Comedians, theater, and a sense of humor! There are other anti-brainwashing methods that work well - experiment.

Somewhere, there is a media committee that coordinates what will be passed out to the CNN-FOX-ABC-NBC-CBS-NYT-WP-WSJ-NPR media outlets (why else do you think they always cover the same topics?). Until more of the American people come to grips with this fact, expect business as usual to continue. In the meantime, the best thing to do is to continue to promote sites such as Alternet, DemocracyNow, ThinkProgress, and to also look at the international press (AFP, AlJazeera, Independent&Guardian, etc.) - and to go out and find things out for yourself using direct investigative methods.

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

Many Want the USA OUT of Korea and OUT of EVERYWHERE ELSE
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2006 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that many want the USA out of S Korea and see the US presence there as provocative to the North and preventing peace. The North's development of nukes can be directly tied to the US presence in the South and many S Koreans even see it as a "defensive" measure by the North. After all, GW Bush proved what happens if you cannot defend yourself. You GET INVADED. In Italy, the US presence there is primarily as a staging area and for the storage of nuclear weapons. The USA has treated Italy as a "vassal state" which was recently apparent over the "extraordinary rendition" controversy (when the US kidnapped a local Muslim to be sent to an Arab country to be tortured). It is therefore just a matter of time before the Italians rise up and demand the USA leave. Meanwhile, the USA is expanding its bases by going into many former Soviet Republics. Russia probably represents the location of the largest known oil reserves and is gradually being surrounded by the USA and NATO. All these US strategies for control and leverage of other peoples and countries inevitably lead in just one direction. To war, as was exemplifed in Iraq and will be again if the USA does not get out of the Empire business.

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

USA now in South/Central America
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 9, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA has troops and soldiers going down to most South American countries all the time. They act as military advisers and in some cases have been complicit in human rights violations. It's not uncommon in South/Central America for protests against the government, against "free trade," etc., to occur, most often by peasants and these movements are "squashed" by US supported governments. Union activitists are also rounded up and jailed. There insistence on better wages would hurt the profit margins of US corporate sweatshops in the country. Mexico is one current example but you also have Chile, where students protesting government cutbacks to education were squashed by (US supported) Chilean troops. US soldiers and advisers often operate clandestinally and with a "low profile" so embassies and hidden support infrastructure are used more then the "big footprint" that a base might create. Regardless, US involvement in many, many countries continues unabated, regardless of the infrastructure basing represents. In some cases, it is more insidious when it is clandestine because locals and even US citizens know very little or nothing about what the government is doing.

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

Breaking, Pinochet
Posted by: fifthworld on Dec 10, 2006 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pinochet dead --

Don't let Bush, Chenfeld, or any of the neocon criminals DIE, none of them!!!!!

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

Bush Is SOOO CRAZY
Posted by: RangeRoverSport07 on Dec 11, 2006 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really think bush seriously needs a hug.
I don't like the idea of bush lying to the congress and secretly starting something that no one apporved of I don't know why the congress don't impeech him.
Building Bases without permission and using our tax dollars to do so.

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

President?
Posted by: wrongisntbad_fixit on Dec 11, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought that the U.S. was a democracy. At least that's what people say. Bush is supposed to be our president. He's suppposed to speak for us, not lie to us. If we can't trust him anymore, what's the point of him being president?? We're supposed to be able to know that he's not going to lie to us no matter what happens...

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

permanent bases in iraq...
Posted by: amylee1203 on Dec 11, 2006 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article reminds me of an article that I read before. It saids that we already have permanent bases in Germany and other countries. Also that Bush is going to build a permanent base so he could dominate the middle east. I don't know if bush is crazy, but one thing for sure he shouldn't lie to the Congress and the whole country. Just like the article, we could do something better with the money used to build bases.

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

The plan all along
Posted by: pb120669 on Dec 14, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration was criticized from all political sectors for "not having an exit strategy" when planning for the invasion of Iraq -- everyone must recall this, I think.

Why didn't they have an exit strategy? I have to disagree with my comrades who think that "they're stupid."

It seems evident now that they didn't plan an exit because:

1) they knew it would take a long time to bring oil production back to pre-sanctions and Oil-for-Food levels;

2) they knew they weren't ever going to leave.

The Democrat party doesn't plan on leaving either.

Only a third party offers a way out of the debacle. And this struggle will last generations.

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