by professorpan » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:28 am
That's been the plan since day 1. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-09T230406Z_01_N09199214_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CONGRESS-FUNDING.xml">today.reuters.com/news/ne...UNDING.xml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>By Richard Cowan<br><br>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.<br><br>The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law.<br><br>As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.<br><br>A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."<br><br>The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a U.S. presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, isn't that special.<br><br>And Maureen Farrell nailed it squarely. Make sure to read the entire Buzzflash article. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/04/far06006.html">www.buzzflash.com/farrell...06006.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sadly, military families who thought "Mission Accomplished" meant troops would come home paid the ultimate price. "What are we getting into here?" one sergeant asked in June, 2003. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"<br><br>Some answered that question before the war even began. Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution flatly said "we won't be leaving," while Josh Marshall reported that the WMD excuse was just a rationale for "getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind."<br><br>That agenda, as described by Bookman and Marshall, centered on creating a permanent military presence in Iraq. "Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran," Bookman wrote in Sept. 2002, well before journalists uncovered possible plans for Tehran.<br><br>Others are now sounding similar alarms. "Anyone thinking we are entering the end-game better wake up," Sen. Gary Hart recently wrote. "Our neoconservative policy makers are still willing to risk the U.S. Army in a mad Middle East imperial scheme that composed the real reason for the Iraq war in the first place."<br><br>Former Pentagon insider Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski also explained that the Pentagon has long been interested in "shifting and reshaping our global military footprint" into strategically advantageous Iraq. "We've built very massive mega-bases. . . These are permanent military bases in Iraq. We've done that in other places, as well, in the Middle East. . . I think that's a big part of it, shifting our footprint. . . we've built the bases, and we're not leaving Iraq," she said on C-SPAN's Q&A.<br><br>Some U.S. bases are so large, in fact, that they're being likened to small American towns. Camp Anaconda, near Balad, for example, encompasses 15 square miles, and features a miniature golf course, two swimming pools, and a first-run movie theater. The base at al-Asad also boasts a movie theater and swimming pool, as well as a Subway restaurant, a coffee shop, and a Hertz rent-a-car facility. Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which is currently under construction, reportedly boasts 21 buildings (including a food court, swimming poll and gym) and spans 104 acres, as opposed to the customary 10. "The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future," the Associated Press reported.<br><br>Though the press seems reluctant to ask whether or not the U.S. is constructing permanent military bases in Iraq ("American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words 'permanent,' 'bases,' and 'Iraq' should never be placed in the same sentence," Tom Engelhardt explained), with hundreds of "enduring" bases worldwide, it seems only logical that the US military would be drafting similar plans for Iraq.<br><br>"After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a foothold," Zoltan Grossman of Evergreen State College recently explained, adding that, "The only two obstacles to a geographically contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria." And with wars in Iran and Syria reportedly unofficially underway, promises of a withdrawal ring decidedly untrue.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>We've only seen the opening moves. <p></p><i></i>