Iraq: It's the Military Bases Stupid!

The American Prospect hits the nail on the head in Spencer Ackerman's discussion of continued American-military presence beyond the so-called war on terror. The story on Iraq keeps changing precisely none of the stories hold up: WMDs, Humanitarian Motives, Stabilization of the Middle East, Iran etc.

Even if Hillary, Obama, and everyone else were to take the hardline approach like Richardson and call for zero residual troops... there is the still the issue of what they would do with all the bases being built there.

Below the jump is a quote from TAP.

Without clear guidance from the Defense Department about the duration of their stay in Iraq, U.S. military commanders began constructing enormous bases capable of garrisoning numerous brigades for an indefinite period. By last year, four of them had sprung up along strategically important points throughout Iraq: in Balad, Tallil, Rawah, and Baghdad. The complex surrounding Baghdad International Airport resembles a county rather than a military base, comprising five camps connected in an efficient confederation and passable through a system of buses over about 25 square miles.

No matter Bush's story, he never claims that our motivation is continued power, presence, or strategic bases. This is partly because such a story would prove his critics right: this is an imperlialist war, not just a war on terror.

The experience of the last four years suggests that anger at the U.S. presence is a durable commodity both in and out of Iraq. "Any extended U.S. force presence, even a reduced one, clearly validates the al-Qaeda storyline," says Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Air War College in Alabama. "Every Arab Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to express outrage at this crusader intrusion into the Arab heartland is going to go after those forces, as we are seeing now." If so, that renders Petraeus' draw-down plan untenable: Five Army brigades is too large a force to merely monitor Iraqi forces, as Petraeus' plan envisioned, yet it's vastly too small to make a difference if those Iraqi forces are overwhelmed.

What is the Democrats response? Well we know they have sponsored multiple bills in support of chaning direction in Iraq. However it seems clear that nothing short of an absolute stalemate. The Conservative response to Iraq is typical of conservatives response in general: They do not need to win, they just need to not lose. If they can keep stringing together "a few months" they can keep us there indefinatey; if they can find "a few skeptics" they can undermine climate change efforts, if they can sow enough doubt about public healthcare, they can keep progressives from fixing healthcare.

As Ackerman notes...

Perversely, Bush, in his final months in office, operates according to the political logic of an Iraqi insurgent: He wins by not obviously losing. It's unclear whether the Democrats have an effective response.

•  Read the PNAC website from stem to

  stern. The repubs and big oil want to control Iraqi Oil. How many or how much Dems. go along with this remains to be seen. This was a war for oil.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:20:02 AM PDT

  •  It was a war to make a friendly, stable Middle

    but of course, the reason why they wanted a friendly, stable Middle East was to protect the oil supply.  I suppose there's little difference between "protect access to the oil supply" and "control the oil supply," and "own the oil supply."  If only they channeled those trillions of dollars into developing secure domestic sources of energy:  Jimmy Carter in his sweater was derided in 1980 for his "meow" speech (energy is the "moral equivalent of war"), but he was exactly correct.

    by Dimetrodon on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:25:00 AM PDT

    •  Actually, the control of energy

      is being touted as the practical alternative to war.  No need to attack when all communications systems can be disrupted.
      Of course, in order to do that, you have to know where the connections are so you don't disrupt the friendlies.  Which is what the domestic spying is about--to map the global communications systems in preparation for attack.

      "What I see in the future is true cross-domain integration, to deliver effects, like we deliver in air and space, where the commander has at his disposal, truly sovereign options, as stated in our mission, which is the ability to do whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want, and however we want -- kinetically, and nonkinetically and at the speed of sound and at the speed of light."

      That's the vision of Dr. Lani Kass, Director of the Pentagon's cyber warfare program.

      Talk about missile bases and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic are a red herring.  Iraq is where the action is.  Surely Putin isn't activating his strategic bombers for something that's to be built in 2013.

      by hannah on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:46:06 AM PDT

    •  All the monies spent.

      Could have BOUGHT the frakkin oil!

      by manwithnoname on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:17:28 AM PDT

•  As I understand it, the reason we went into

  Iraq was to stabilize the Middle East, to put a stable and friendly regime in place in Iraq.  This agenda predated 9/11 (Saddam was reckless and vicious, and had long since proven unreliable as a US ally), but 9/11 put new urgency in the project (Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but the Middle East theocracies and dictatorships were viewed as a breeding ground for these kind of groups).  The reason why WMD was advanced as a cause of war was this was a convenient legal justification for war; of course, the specific evidence was nothing more than bluff, but the Bush administration (and many others) did expect to find WMD when they arrived in Iraq.  (It now appears that Saddam acted as if he had something to hide to intimidate his neighbors; he did not expect the US to attack him.)

  So in the present situation:  You have observed that we are building large, permanent military bases in Iraq.  The reason for this is of course because they do not intend on leaving; they believe that if we leave, there will be a regional conflagration.  But here is my real point:  The original plan was for a friendly Iraq (secular Shiite, led by Ahmad Chalabi, who promised normalized relations with Israel) that would host our continued military presence.  That is, the original plan wasn't exactly to conquer and permanently occupy Iraq.  They thought we would be welcome to stay as guests (the way will still maintain large bases in Germany and elsewhere).  The original plan was less sinister than folks might think.  The problem is that they were fantastically incompetent: they had no plan for Phase IV (after the initial war), security broke down, an insurgency started, and they made numerous mistakes in the ensuing counterinsurgency campaign (as described in the Thomas Ricks book Fiasco).

  I should mention I did not support the war (I wrote my congressmen asking them to vote against the war authorization resolution in October 2002).

  by Dimetrodon on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:21:14 AM PDT

  •  Read the PNAC website.

    Bush couldn't come out and say to the people that we were going to war with Iraq to gain control of their oil. That would never float. So they made up these flowery tales about stabilzing the ME. The PNAC site lays out their plans that were developed over the 80's and 90's. The end game is Owning the Planet Earth and the Space above it! The Bush's and Cheneys and Rumsfields all signed on to this project!

    by Owllwoman on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:33:15 AM PDT

  •  The problem is: they were lied to

    by Ahmed Chalabi and the organized false intel campaign waged by the Iraqi National Congress on behalf of Iran.
    Please see:
    Cheney is also a complete fool
    and
    Cheney's a gullible fool; just ask Iran
    and
    Iraq war over: Iran won

    That is, the original plan wasn't exactly to conquer and permanently occupy Iraq.  They thought we would be welcome to stay as guests (the way will still maintain large bases in Germany and elsewhere).  The original plan was less sinister than folks might think.  The problem is that they were fantastically incompetent:

    Cheney and the entire incestuous, bubble-headed mob known as the neocons were SUCKERED by Ahmed Chalabi to believe they would be welcomed as liberators, granted permenent bases, lucrative no-bid oil contracts and a foothold in Iraq to permanently control mideast oil for at least a century.
    But actually, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq disposed of Iran's mortal enemy, Saddam and his Sunni oppressors, and cleared the way for Iran to gain power and influence over most of Iraq, and thus become the new mideast superpower.
    And that's why Cheney and his sidekick Bush are hopping mad at Iran and waving guns in Iran's face right now. It's a typical human reaction to being conned.
    It's poetic justice and supreme irony, and a historic shift in power. In fact it means the end of the American Century, not the beginning.

    by howardfromUSA on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:12:49 AM PDT

    •  spot-on analysis. nt

      by Dimetrodon on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

•  ultimately

  it's about Caspian Sea oil

  by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:23:04 AM PDT

•  Elizabeth Edwards: No Permanent bases

  I've heard her say it, and assume it's John's position as well.  The one glaring exception is that JRE would maintain the embassy.

  Obviously Bush wants an imperial occupation of Iraq for decades -- regardless of the blood that is lost.  We need to elect a dem who won't grant Bush his wish.

  by JeremiahFP on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:24:25 AM PDT

  •  As I mention above, the original goal

    was a friendly Iraq that would host our bases, not an unending military occupation of a hostile country.  They have apparently opted for the latter because they have little choice (given their mindset in looking for military solutions to the underlying problem of fragile energy supplies).

    by Dimetrodon on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:28:28 AM PDT

    •  You are so wrong. Again read the PNAC website and

      read it from stem to stern.

      by Owllwoman on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:34:48 AM PDT

  •  The Pentagon has already made it

    clear that there are NO PERMANENT U.S. BASES ANYWHERE on the globe.  Even the ones here at home aren't permanent, as the BRAC process has shown.  
    Since this has been made perfectly clear, the continued use of the word "permanent" is deceptive.
    As usual, Bush Two has taken advantage of his ability to declassify information on the fly and spoken the truth in projecting a presence in Iraq comparable to South Korea and Germany (where some of the missiles are supposed to be relocated from).  
    When I say "taken advantage" I mean that he's raised an issue that the Senators who have been briefed on the Pentagon plans and what they are actually paying for in Iraq are not supposed to reveal because it's all classified information and subject to national security restrictions.  He did it most effectively during the 2004 campaign where he mentioned Kerry's vote.  While most reporters and pundits thought it referred to the vote for the AUMF, it was really a sinister message to Kerry that he'd better not bring up that topic if he didn't want all the other votes for the planning of the invasion (during the Clinton administration) to be dragged out.

    Hey, everybody thought it would be a great idea to establish a U.S. military presence in the Middle East.  Saudi Arabia didn't work out, but secular Iraq was supposed to be easy.  If only Saddam Hussein weren't such a hard man to strike a bargain with!
    Never mind that Bush One stabbed him in the back and derailed the project for good.  Bush Two was going to fix it and show Poppy, once and for all, who could carry the project through to success.

    by hannah on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:58:59 AM PDT

    •  Links?

      by JeremiahFP on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:42:03 AM PDT

•  Well, that's right.

  Only, it wasn't

  Without clear guidance from the Defense Department about the duration of their stay in Iraq, U.S. military commanders began constructing enormous bases capable of garrisoning numerous brigades for an indefinite period.

  The only thing that was unclear was the number of long-term missile bases, airfields and radar installations they were going to set up.  The original plan, before the invasion, was for fourteen.  That number has been scaled back to four or five, each of which is the size of the island of Manhattan.

  The national guard contingents (with their heavy construction equipment) were originally sent to do the pre-development work, based on the assumption that what Saddam Hussein had denied (basing rights) would be granted by the newly installed ruling authority/government.  The fly in the ointment was the U.N. which ruled that no contracts approved by a provisional authority for the sale or lease of Iraqi assets (oil, land, water, mineral rights) would be considered valid by the world community until a sovereign government was set up.  That set in motion the push for a new constitution which (rather irregularly) includes provisions for the disposition of natural resources (not just oil)--provisions which were contested by the Sunni and compromised with a promise that the Constitution would be amended to take them out, at the earliest date.  That hasn't happened.  Instead, the U.S. has pressured for an oil and land lease law consistent with the questionable provisions and the continued Iraqi resistance is what's supposed to be "politically" resolved.
  I think the U.N. authorization for a stabilizing force comes up for reconsideration this December.  The U.S. is angling for a "status of forces agreement" with Iraq which would be, in effect, an invitation for the 100,000 regular army, marine and air force contingents to remain manning their espionage and missile installations.
  Iraq is a land-grab, pure and simple.  It's in a strategic location for launching missile interceptors, downloading satellite data and interrupting international electronic communications networks.
  It's all part of the grand plan to insure that "the wars of the future will be fought in cyberspace."  No more boots on the ground.  The globe will be subjugated to the New World Order by remote control.

  by hannah on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:36:34 AM PDT

•  Intractable

  I think when we see how intractable Bush is about a course change or anything else, we are flattened.

  We can't believe it. We can't fathom the logic.

  Then if we think about Halliburton, and his and Cheney's connection to it, and all the companies over there, and then the bases... it becomes clear.

  Bush can't talk about a logical reason, because his own logical reason is one very few will back.

  People will back the war on terror on Iran (to a degree).

  But very few would buy an imperial motivation.

  by BlueThunder on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:43:09 AM PDT

•  Just imagine if all the billions poured into

  those bases had been spent on education and health back here.

  by Lepanto on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:57:42 AM PDT

  •  Money is like the alphabet.

    It mediates transactions much as words mediate the transmission of thought.
    The materials being used up in Iraq and the troops being paid are all part of the U.S. economy and it's extremely unlikely that the radar and missile minders would be here teaching school and handing out pills, if they weren't doing what they're doing over there.
    The reason we don't have adequate education and health care is because the people whom we've empowered to make decisions prefer to conquer other domains to taking care of business here at home.
    People who build stealth bombers aren't keen on teaching in inner city schools.

    by hannah on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:06:00 AM PDT

    •  My new signature....

      People who build stealth bombers aren't keen on teaching in inner city schools.

      by BlueThunder on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

•  Come to think of it, your title is

  inaccurate.  Al Asad, Balad and the Baghdad base are air bases and it's the air force that's getting set to wage battles in cyberspace.
  Of course, it's also the air force that's been smashing Iraq with 500 lb bombs and missiles.
  It's the air force in Colorado that's directing drones in Iraq from computer consoles.

  by hannah on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:46:24 AM PDT