Blood For Military Bases

Mathew Yglesias writes: Speaking of Iraq policy, I seem to have misset my clock radio last night and instead of the usual NPR got what I think was C-SPAN Radio where they had Marina Ottaway on. She, unlike pretty much everyone else one ever hears talking on this subject, did an admirable job of raising the elephant in the corner of American Iraq policy, the fact that near as anybody can tell the administration is still trying to finagle some kind of permanent military basing agreement in Iraq. That the administration has managed to hew consistently to this agenda without ever stating that this is one of their major policy goals is astounding, and that the American media is consistently unwilling to discuss the point is appalling. What's even more astounding about it is that one regularly hears and reads in expert commentary that we ought to "make clear" that this isn't what we're doing. Apparently, it's impolitic to note that Bush isn't making it clear that we don't want permanent bases because we do, in fact, want permanent bases. This passage reminded me of something...

...the famous Project for a New American Century military plan completed for the Bush campaign (PDF) in September of 2000:

The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (p. 29)

From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. (p. 26)

From a neo-con perspective, the invasion of Iraq has many purposes, but the central role that new, permanent military bases in southern Iraq played in the rationale never been seriously discussed by the media. In fact, it did not even make the top twenty-seven rationales for war identified in this study. However, in all the many rationales that have been discussed openly, the central role of new permanent military bases in southern Iraq cannot be avoided. The purpose of such bases is to buttress the forces already in Kuwait, prop up a puppet Iraqi regime with a permanent military presence, maintain an aggressive military stance against Iran, wield significant influence over Gulf region oil fields, and increase the reach of the American military over all of southwest Asia. Bush, the GOP platform committee and the majority of the now high-ranking members of the Defense Department either said or wrote this on several occasions during the 2000 campaign. Yet the media never talks about it.

Tags: World (all tags)



Another reason to read my biodiesel thread :)
We really do have a viable alternative energy technology that the research is complete on and implimentation can begin tomorrow. It's not science fiction. It's real. The US goverment has completed the research.... but nobody believes it because Peter Jennings isn't telling them about it.

Here's the link...

Please take a couple of minutes to actually read the info in the thread.

by afs 2005-03-21 10:28AM | 0 recs
It's about the Oil and Opec
Gotta check your radio before you go to sleep. God knows, you might wake up and a Right Wing evangelist telling you "Wake Up, Oh Lord, Wake Up." Scary thought.

You have got to see this report from Greg Palast of the BBC and Harpers. Very interesting read and you can watch it:

afs - you are on the right track. This summer I was reviewing a Private Placement deal for a new upcoming company - Xethanol Corp -

Trust me Iraq is going to look like a huge rubble pile for a long time to come. We're still not finished with the insurgents. Also having a military presence in such an interior country is very dangerous considering your neighbors. I think the US would much rather have small, tiny bases in Iraq and bulk up on the bases on coastal Arabic countries. That way the Navy can evacuate quickly if need be. Too dangerous to have iraqi bases.

I hope you see that this whole war was about reigning in the control of OPEC on oil. As a corollary this will allow the US to have a seat at the table via Iraq. It's all about the oil.

We should be supporting wind-energy, support needs to be given for the Wind Farm off of Nantucket. There is enough space off-shore to start raising Wind-Generators. We must do this and look into BioDiesel and Xethanol. Not Anwar and not War in Iraq. Hey I bet that someone smart could create a catchy phrase with Anwar and War.

by neolib 2005-03-21 03:20PM | 0 recs
Office of Special Plans
In the inner circles of the Pentagon this was always a clear motive for the invasion; the lack of public dialogue on the subject has not been for want of trying. USAF Col Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.) has been beating the drum on the deception campaign coming out of the "Office of Special Plans" for a long time, but few will listen, apparently. There is a very informative article/interview that ran in LA Weekly last year:
Just a taste:
"There was a sort of groupthink, an adopted storyline: We are going to invade Iraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to have bases in Iraq. This was all a given even by the time I joined them, in May of 2002."
There's much more, this was a watershed eye-opener for me; it was one thing to instinctivly feel as I did that the whole WMD arguement was a con, it's quite a different thing to read an insider's account who watched it all happen. Take a minute, read, and remember - if you chuck your monitor out the window, you'll have to buy a new one. :-/
by Josalo 2005-03-21 04:08PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads