Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq

[jahawkin]

Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

No we should not be surprised, we occupied japan for 6 years before the goverment was deemed stable enough to run on its own. The military expected to be in Afganistan for about 10 years as well. Putting a new goverment is not quick.

But I guess you would rather the US pull out completely right now and leave the country in anarchy?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

No we should not be surprised, we occupied japan for 6 years before the goverment was deemed stable enough to run on its own. The military expected to be in Afganistan for about 10 years as well. Putting a new goverment is not quick.

But I guess you would rather the US pull out completely right now and leave the country in anarchy?

I don't think this has much to do with establishing a government and law and order in the country. "Planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq" doesn't sound like we're just doing it for the stability of the nation. It sounds like once a stable government is formed in Iraq our military will be around for years to come.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

I don't think this has much to do with establishing a government and law and order in the country. "Planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq" doesn't sound like we're just doing it for the stability of the nation. It sounds like once a stable government is formed in Iraq our military will be around for years to come.

The US military will be in Iraq for a while to ensure stability and they will need bases of operation. Hopefully they will be augmented by a large contingent of UN peacekeepers. Following the establishment of a stable government, what problem do you have if the US military remains in Iraq under an equitable relationship with the new Iraqi government?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

No we should not be surprised, we occupied japan for 6 years before the goverment was deemed stable enough to run on its own. The military expected to be in Afganistan for about 10 years as well. Putting a new goverment is not quick.

But I guess you would rather the US pull out completely right now and leave the country in anarchy?

I don't think this has much to do with establishing a government and law and order in the country. "Planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq" doesn't sound like we're just doing it for the stability of the nation. It sounds like once a stable government is formed in Iraq our military will be around for years to come.

Once again, is this a surprise. After 50 years we still have a presence in Japan and Germany. After 40 years we still have a presence in Korea. After 10 years we still have presence in saudi and kuwait. However, we have a military presence in all these countries with the permission of the host goverment.

Like I said, this should surprise no one.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

No we should not be surprised, we occupied japan for 6 years before the goverment was deemed stable enough to run on its own. The military expected to be in Afganistan for about 10 years as well. Putting a new goverment is not quick.

But I guess you would rather the US pull out completely right now and leave the country in anarchy?

I don't think this has much to do with establishing a government and law and order in the country. "Planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq" doesn't sound like we're just doing it for the stability of the nation. It sounds like once a stable government is formed in Iraq our military will be around for years to come.

Once again, is this a surprise. After 50 years we still have a presence in Japan and Germany. After 40 years we still have a presence in Korea. After 10 years we still have presence in saudi and kuwait. However, we have a military presence in all these countries with the permission of the host goverment.

Like I said, this should surprise no one.

Well then hopefully those people who are in favor of and defending this action won't be surprised when this adds to the perception that we are an agressor nation looking to expand it's empire. Nor should they be surprised when we are treated as such.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think it's fanciful to believe a democratic government in Iraq will allow a long-term US presence. Turkey is a damn ally and they wouldn't allow a pit stop. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Kuwait b/c the countries are oligarchies . . . Kuwait is the only nation where the population would consent to an interim US presence.

The most successful (populist) politician in Iraq will be the one calling for a quick end to a US presence (military). What are we going to do . . . say no?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think it's fanciful to believe a democratic government in Iraq will allow a long-term US presence. Turkey is a damn ally and they wouldn't allow a pit stop. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Kuwait b/c the countries are oligarchies . . . Kuwait is the only nation where the population would consent to an interim US presence.

The most successful (populist) politician in Iraq will be the one calling for a quick end to a US presence (military). What are we going to do . . . say no?

Yes...

Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Linky

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining 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.

I guess we shouldn't be suprised seeing as how the PNAC advocated this way before Bush was in office.

No we should not be surprised, we occupied japan for 6 years before the goverment was deemed stable enough to run on its own. The military expected to be in Afganistan for about 10 years as well. Putting a new goverment is not quick.

But I guess you would rather the US pull out completely right now and leave the country in anarchy?

Actually I would have preferred we stayed out of Iraq all together, but now that we're there I agree with you, we have to stay till it's stable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jjones
[ ... ] Following the establishment of a stable government, what problem do you have if the US military remains in Iraq under an equitable relationship with the new Iraqi government?

It's not the problem I have, it's the problem that Arabic people have with it. Remember that Osama bin Laden said he turned against the United States because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. I imagine many new Osama wanna-be's will be upset to find us setting up shop in Iraq too.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think it's fanciful to believe a democratic government in Iraq will allow a long-term US presence. Turkey is a damn ally and they wouldn't allow a pit stop. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Kuwait b/c the countries are oligarchies . . . Kuwait is the only nation where the population would consent to an interim US presence.

The most successful (populist) politician in Iraq will be the one calling for a quick end to a US presence (military). What are we going to do . . . say no?

To clarify, we also have a major, permanent air base in Turkey. They wouldn't let us use it for attacking Iraq.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jjones
[ ... ] Following the establishment of a stable government, what problem do you have if the US military remains in Iraq under an equitable relationship with the new Iraqi government?

It's not the problem I have, it's the problem that Arabic people have with it. Remember that Osama bin Laden said he turned against the United States because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. I imagine many new Osama wanna-be's will be upset to find us setting up shop in Iraq too.

The Arabic people that would oppose US presence and the Osama wanna-be's will have whatever problems with the US they always seem to have whether we're in Iraq or not. The point is, if the elected Iraqi government sees fit to support a US military base in Iraqi territory and it's in the interests of the US to do so, there's no reason not to have one. The real question you seem to be presenting is whether it is in US interests and even if it is, shouldn't the US now be cowering from fear of Arab terrorism?

 

[konichiwa]

If a true Iraqi gov't desires a US base in Iraq then I don't see a problem. The issue lies with the fact that the government that would agree to a US occupation in an Arab country is most likely a) not representative of its people or b) controlled, at least somewhat, by the US

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jjones
[ ... ] Following the establishment of a stable government, what problem do you have if the US military remains in Iraq under an equitable relationship with the new Iraqi government?

It's not the problem I have, it's the problem that Arabic people have with it. Remember that Osama bin Laden said he turned against the United States because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. I imagine many new Osama wanna-be's will be upset to find us setting up shop in Iraq too.

The Arabic people that would oppose US presence and the Osama wanna-be's will have whatever problems with the US they always seem to have whether we're in Iraq or not. The point is, if the elected Iraqi government sees fit to support a US military base in Iraqi territory and it's in the interests of the US to do so, there's no reason not to have one. The real question you seem to be presenting is whether it is in US interests and even if it is, shouldn't the US now be cowering from fear of Arab terrorism?

I simply hope we go in with our eyes open if we're going to do something that will aggravate anti-American feelings in the Middle East. We have a habit of blindly blundering in, then acting surprised at the inevitable consequences.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jjones
[ ... ] Following the establishment of a stable government, what problem do you have if the US military remains in Iraq under an equitable relationship with the new Iraqi government?

It's not the problem I have, it's the problem that Arabic people have with it. Remember that Osama bin Laden said he turned against the United States because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. I imagine many new Osama wanna-be's will be upset to find us setting up shop in Iraq too.

The Arabic people that would oppose US presence and the Osama wanna-be's will have whatever problems with the US they always seem to have whether we're in Iraq or not. The point is, if the elected Iraqi government sees fit to support a US military base in Iraqi territory and it's in the interests of the US to do so, there's no reason not to have one. The real question you seem to be presenting is whether it is in US interests and even if it is, shouldn't the US now be cowering from fear of Arab terrorism?

I simply hope we go in with our eyes open if we're going to do something that will aggravate anti-American feelings in the Middle East. We have a habit of blindly blundering in, then acting surprised at the inevitable consequences.

I agree, I meen, do we really need more people to hate us? It seams as though 2/3 of the world already does, with more joining every day thanks to the Bush admin.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

To clarify, we also have a major, permanent air base in Turkey. They wouldn't let us use it for attacking Iraq.

Well yeah . . . it's not like we need an Iraq base to defend Iraq . . . we are going to use it for "force projection".

As for Gitmo . . . the Cubans signed an agreement and then changed their mind. As a dutiful bully we just ignore their protestations. The fact that we ignore any sovereign that doesn't comply with our wishes is not a new phenomenon. My point is that just nations don't do it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And just people don't tolerate their government doing it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think it's fanciful to believe a democratic government in Iraq will allow a long-term US presence. Turkey is a damn ally and they wouldn't allow a pit stop. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Kuwait b/c the countries are oligarchies . . . Kuwait is the only nation where the population would consent to an interim US presence.

The most successful (populist) politician in Iraq will be the one calling for a quick end to a US presence (military). What are we going to do . . . say no?

To clarify, we also have a major, permanent air base in Turkey. They wouldn't let us use it for attacking Iraq.

Actually I think we had a base in Turkey. Since Northern watch has been shutdown, the US military in Turkey have been reassigned.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

To clarify, we also have a major, permanent air base in Turkey. They wouldn't let us use it for attacking Iraq.

Well yeah . . . it's not like we need an Iraq base to defend Iraq . . . we are going to use it for "force projection".

As for Gitmo . . . the Cubans signed an agreement and then changed their mind. As a dutiful bully we just ignore their protestations. The fact that we ignore any sovereign that doesn't comply with our wishes is not a new phenomenon. My point is that just nations don't do it.

Actually we have a long term lease(100 year or something strange) with Cuba. We pay rent for Gitmo.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Leases are often terminated by one party or both. The US has not paid to use Gitmo in decades b/c Cuba refuses to accept payment and considers the lease terminated.

short version
The lease on the Guantánamo property is perpetual, with no termination date or fixed number of years. The land can revert to Cuban control only if abandoned or by mutual agreement, neither of which has occurred.

much longer version for people that think history is worth knowing


I believe the current rent paid by the US government is $4000 a year . . . of which Castro has never cashed a payment.

 

[Alistar7]

If this means removing the bases in SA and Kuwait I am ok with it, having one so close to Nasiriya might not be the best idea though. The flow of money, arms, and terrorists from Iran to Syria is substantial though, having those bases there will help stem that tide.

Notice Israel found a tunnel that goes into Egypt being used to funnel arms in for the PLO....