14 US Military Bases Under Construction In Iraq

14 US Military Bases Under Construction In Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
May 25, 2004, 07:50

Iraqis also know that 14 US military bases are already under construction, enough to accommodate the (for the moment) 110,000 American soldiers who will stay in Iraq until at least 2007. No sovereign Iraqi government has approved the construction of these bases. Kimmitt - the No 2 Pentagon man in Iraq, and the one who launched total war on Fallujah - said the bases are "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East". A ring of US military bases throughout what the Pentagon calls the Greater Middle East is a key element of the neo-conservative-driven strategy to control world energy resources as the way to control the destiny of America's economic rivals - the European Union and Northeast Asia.


One Year On: From Liberation To Jihad


By

"So this is the Bush administration-sponsored "free Iraq" people identify not only in the Sunni triangle but in the Shi'ite south: an occupying power maybe not formally occupying the country any more, but installed in 14 military bases and able to exercise full control on security, the economy and the whole infrastructure. In plain English: a US colony. This is the reason the mob in Fallujah rejoiced in the burning of those American bodies. This is the reason Sunnis and Shi'ites have for now united in anger. And this is the reason the "liberation" has finally turned into a jihad."

On April 9, 2002, Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdaus Square in Baghdad was still enveloped, like a Christo installation, waiting to be unveiled in an official ceremony. On April 9, 2003, the statue was toppled by the US Army, and later replaced by a faceless figure symbolizing "liberation". On April 9, 2004, the faceless statue is plastered with photographs of "outlaw" Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

One year after the "fall" of Baghdad, the old colonial maxim "divide and rule" does not apply anymore. For the occupiers, this is the ultimate nightmare: Sunni and Shi'ite, united (almost) as one. From Kirkuk in the north to Karbala in the south, from Fallujah to Nasiriyah, from Ramadi to Baghdad, Iraq is in turmoil - and this is not the work of "Saddam Fedayeen", "remnants of the Ba'ath Party" or "foreign terrorists". This is the beginning of the end: the serious possibility that the Shi'ites - 60 percent or so of the invaded and "liberated" Iraqi population - will be tempted actively to lead the multifaceted Iraqi resistance.

more
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_7942.shtml

is all going according to plan. I hope the dictator they pick is able to function with all the guns pointed at his head :eyes:

What better place than military bases around the world where they will be out of sight and out of mind. We will continue to warehouse blacks in our prisons and poor whites and Hispanics in military bases around the world. Then we won't have to see them or deal with them here at home. One hell of an economic system. Ok, so we may have to kill a few thousand Arabs and lose a few hundred US children...but the end justifies the means. I mean, we need those tax breaks or we will lose civiliation as we know it. Why can't you see this, you PC, namby-pamby,loose morals, pinko, heathen, liberals!?

He should point to the building of these permanent bases.

Is Kerry planning on keeping them open or closing them? If he would plan on closing them, he should bring this out somehow. If he doesn't want to talk about it, send Clark out to discuss it.

If he is planning on keeping them open, he's being foolish.

(note: I didn't mention Bush in all this, since we KNOW he's foolish and would plan on keeping them open, since he's building them).

if you think we'll pull out of Iraq in the next 50-100 years. The number one priority is to secure the flow of oil out of that beleagured region. It is especially crucial now since we have pulled out of Saudi Arabia.

Kerry is now the Establishment's choice to fulfill that mission. The hope is that he can pull off a miracle and finesse this thing whereas Cheney failed to succeed by using force. Diplomacy and internationalization could succeed because the western industrialized world is in agreement that it must be done. But its clear now the US must compromise on all the big issues if civilization is to be saved from the road to ruin we are now on.

Kerry must call a world summit of all powers and Arab nations to address this issue. US will guard oil fields, pipelines, and sea lanes while an international force of 400,000 will be required to patrol Iraq and the border of the newly created Palestinian state.

It's the only thing that keeps me from just running out into the street to throw rocks at things.

I have built up a nice little pile of rocks to use if the time comes, however...

:shrug:

You might need them for the new Stone Age that's coming!!!

,...if I allow myself to fall completely into cynicism or despair,...I might as well do nothing at all.

I must confess, however, that my optimism is very, very thin these days, especially with respect to the plans on the ME.

can't afford these bases. We may not be able to afford the costs of bringing people back, once there is an accurate accounting of where these billions of dollars went. Kerry might be off the hook, in many ways. But what a mess that will be.

.....any country builds 14 bases abroad some months before an major election without a political consensus to stay over there a very long time ?

empire, with all the accompanying costs. Especially since a new administration might just check the books and find out how much got stolen by the outgoing administration.

I have no doubt as to what Bushco's plans are.

Is this the "reconstruction" that we have been touting?

handover of power?

training wheels?

:puke:

that the wingnuts are complaining the media hasn't covered!

14 bases from which the new Iraqi military (probably Shi'a and most definitely anti-US) can launch attacks against US interests in the ME.

Hey, we built Osama's caves in Afghanistan, didn't we? :grr:

... along with the "privatized" lands and resources that the 'Coalition' has sold/gifted to global corporations.

It'd be interesting to find out how much US taxpayers are paying for the construction of those bases and have some comparison to constuction costs for something like homeless shelters, low cost housing, road repairs in our inner cities, etc.

Or, perhaps a better way of putting it might be where are they stealing the money to pay for this from?

You and I are paying for it, obviously.

on edit:

I'd be willing to bet that KBR, a division of Halliburton, is doing the construction as well.

who else?

:eyes:

There also are plans to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north.

from your link

Dollar figures have not been released. The Defense Department plans to build the bases under its own contracts separate from the State Department and its Embassy in Baghdad.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the head of coalition forces in Iraq, recently outlined a plan that would slice the current Coalition Provisional Authority into pieces after sovereignty is returned to Iraqis at the end of June.

The U.S. Embassy would absorb some coalition workers as Embassy personnel; the Defense Department would take others. Its workers would direct most of the major contracts connected to the $18 billion allocated for Iraq reconstruction, military planners said.

The Program Management Office, the agency that has been doling out the cash, will remain under the Defense Department.

"It was a significant win," one military planner said. "In terms of controlling the money, Defense is in control."

lots more
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

.

While I know fully well that there will be nothing resembling an "end" to the occupation when a coat of paint is thrown on the facade at the end of June, the logic of these permanent basis baffles me. Moving targets like supply & attack convoys can barely move around without being eliminated, why then would fixed & permanent targets be given to the resistance? How much easier could it be made for them?

.
.
.


They'll get their oil, (that gawd put under Iraqi soil, silly gawd . .)

But also the World's hatred along with it.

and guess what?

The hatred will last longer than the oil.

That's my Canuk Opinion

Like all of the other neo-com wet dreams of AmeriKan Imperialism in the ME, it will go out with a BANG!

"On 13 June 2003 the Defense Department signed a $200 million contract with the Kellogg Brown Root subsidiary of Halliburton to build barracks for 100,000 troops in Iraq at as many as twenty locations. According to the initial exclusive report in the trade journal Inside the Army, the contract includes "the set-up and operation of all housing and logistics to sustain task force personnel." The barracks are known as a "SEAhut,"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm

And here is what the baracks look like (Pic from Kosovo. KBR building the same thing in Iraq.)



http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98/monteith3.htm

Close bases in the US, open bases in Iraq...

http://www.americanempireproject.com/johnson/johnson_interview.htm

"You say there are at least 725 American military bases in existence outside the United States. What purpose do they serve?

America's empire of military bases is there to garrison the world, to ensure that no nation or combination of nations can exert influence that the president, his advisers, and the Pentagon have not sanctioned.

It is possible to reduce the complex set of purposes and interests that have led to this gargantuan deployment of military power to five post-Cold War missions for our bases. These are:

(1) maintaining absolute military preponderance over the rest of the world, a task that includes imperial policing to ensure that no part of the empire slips the leash;

(2)eavesdropping on the communications of citizens, allies, and enemies alike, often apparently just to demonstrate that no realm of privacy is impervious to the technological capabilities of our government;

(3)attempting to control as many sources of petroleum as possible, both to service America's insatiable demand for fossil fuels and to use it as a bargaining chip with even more oil-dependent regions;

(4)providing work and income for the military-industrial complex;

(5)and ensuring that members of the military and their families live comfortably and are well entertained while serving abroad.

No one of these goals or even all of them together, however, can entirely explain our expanding empire of bases. There is something else at work, which I believe is the post-Cold War discovery of our immense power rationalized by the self-glorifying conclusion that because we have it we deserve to have it. The only truly common elements in the totality of America's foreign bases are imperialism and militarism -- an impulse on the part of our elites to dominate other peoples largely because we have the power to do so, followed by the strategic reasoning that, in order to defend these newly acquired outposts and control the regions they are in, we must expand the areas under our control with still more bases. To maintain its empire, the Pentagon must constantly invent new reasons for keeping as many bases as possible long after the wars and crises that led to their creation have evaporated."

but I will say, it is like watching the 9/11 hearings. Expect to be very depressed. There is no bright side. In his final chapter, he points out how many Empires have failed and ended in ruins, bankruptcy, & disillusionment. What a monumental task it will be for whoever takes over.

That the Iraqis will fight with their lives to stop the American's pillage of their natural resources. And that this becomes a nightmare for the invaders.

Of course America will need more people to continue the robbing, which means the draft is a sure thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with axisoflogic.com, but this is from the Chi Trib:

Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned

In-Depth Coverage
By Christine Spolar

From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.
...
Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

...

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the head of coalition forces in Iraq, recently outlined a plan that would slice the current Coalition Provisional Authority into pieces after sovereignty is returned to Iraqis at the end of June.

The U.S. Embassy would absorb some coalition workers as Embassy personnel; the Defense Department would take others. Its workers would direct most of the major contracts connected to the $18 billion allocated for Iraq reconstruction, military planners said. The Program Management Office, the agency that has been doling out the cash, will remain under the Defense Department. "It was a significant win," one military planner said. "In terms of controlling the money, Defense is in control."

© Copyright 2004, Chicago Tribune Company


Don't have the Trib link, but this came from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

How long the rest of the world will continue to admit their oil supplies are under US control and threat ?

The next five years could be very dangerous perhaps with reversals of alliances.

to ensure that the "democratic" government of Iraq conforms to US wishes...

And does Kerry intend to remove these, too?

I wonder what they'll think about that...

The Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds will unite under one goal to throw the US & UK colonists out. Al Sistani is biding his time. The colonization will not stand.