« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Permanent Bases: The New Normal?
Lieutenant General Doug Lute's hearing will probably be most memorable for how it raised doubt as to Steve Hadley's job as national security adviser. Just before the hearing ended, however, Lute offered a new iteration of the administration's line on the most controversial issue of all: permanent military bases. Lute said that "we don't seek this," but desire instead "a more normalized nation-to-nation relationship" with Iraq:
But a "more normalized" relationship with Iraq may not be inconsistent to the Bush administration with an open-ended presence. During a March reporting trip I took to Iraq, U.S. diplomats and military officers explained to me how we're likely to stay in Iraq for some unspecified-but-long period of time by using some variation of the line Lute used in the hearing. And with the president offering South Korea -- where the U.S. has garrisoned forces for half a century -- as a model for the future of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, it's clear that the administration envisions keeping at least some troops there. Lute didn't specify what a "more normalized" relationship will entail in terms of a troop commitment, but he may have introduced an open-ended war's new euphemism.
Comments (5)
Anonymous wrote on June 7, 2007 1:22 PM:If the Saudi prince got $$$$$$ from the British,
under a "code" name, what makes you think that WE, the United States didn't do the same? And why is any country giving this cartel money when they have us up against a wall with oil which the profits are outrageous?
.............................................
Saudi prince got British arms money: BBC
ROBERT BARR
Associated Press
June 7, 2007 at 6:13 AM EDT
LONDON — A Saudi prince received millions of dollars for his own use as part of Britain's largest arms deal, the British Broadcasting Corp. says.
In upcoming report from its Panorama program, the BBC says that the payments went to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who negotiated the $80-billion (U.S.) Al-Yamamah arms deal to sell 100 warplanes in 1985.
BAE Systems, the prime contractor, has denied that it ever violated British law in relation to the contract. Prince Bandar refused to comment, the BBC said in a statement Wednesday.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken responsibility for calling off an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into allegations that BAE Systems ran a $120-million “slush fund” offering sweeteners to Saudi officials in return for contracts as part of the Al-Yamamah deal.
Speaking at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, Mr. Blair refused to comment on the allegations raised in the BBC report but repeated his long-standing defence of his government's actions.
“This investigation, if it had gone ahead, would have involved the most serious allegations in investigations being made into the Saudi royal family and my job is to give advice as to whether that is a sensible thing in circumstances where I don't believe the investigation incidentally would have led anywhere except to the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship for our country,” he said. “Quite apart from the fact that we would have lost thousands, thousands of British jobs.”
The BBC report says that up to $240-million a year was sent by BAE from the U.K. to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington. There was no distinction between the accounts of the embassy and official government accounts, the BBC said.
“The BBC's Panorama program has established that these accounts were actually a conduit to Prince Bandar. ... The purpose of one of the accounts was to pay the expenses of the prince's private Airbus.”
Roger Berry, who chairs a House of Commons committee that reviews arms deals, said Thursday that “these matters need to be properly investigated.”
“It's bad for British business, apart from anything else, if allegations of bribery popping around aren't investigated,” Mr. Berry told BBC radio.
Al-Yamamah, meaning “the dove,” was the name given to an agreement under which BAE supplied Tornado fighter jets and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia, which paid the British government with oil. The full extent of the deal was never revealed but it was widely believed to be Britain's largest-ever export agreement.
syvanen wrote on June 7, 2007 4:20 PM:There is surprisingly little comment on how infeasible permanent bases are the Arab region of Iraq. As long as US forces are present, they will be targets for attack. No government that has the support of its people would last a day if they permitted those bases. Our military imagines that the bases will be supplied by air so the troops will not have to venture outside. Thus we will set up static positions that will become targets for mortars, katyshka rockets and very likely antiaircraft missiles. The insurgent forces will likely have clandestine government support. Without doubt the Syrians and Iranians will keep them supplied. Our troops will just sit there and be targets for 50 years?
This scenario so insane it is difficult to even waste time thinking about it. Our occupation of Iraq has failed. We will withdraw. There is no alternative. The only question is when this withdrawal occurs. Now or early during the next administration. I think we will be lucky if we could even keep our embassy. Probably the best we could hope for is wait a decade or so before reestablishing a consular presence.
Roberta wrote on June 7, 2007 4:57 PM:You know that whole "Golden Rule" thing that's supposed to be one of the bases of Christianity? There certainly is no consideration in this Administration about whether Americans would want another country's military presence of any kind in the US, even one not "intended" to be permanent. Jeez, remember how bent out of shape everyone was when the Dubai was going to manage the ports? And that wasn't even military.
It's just one more example of how the "do unto others" thing (that these self-professed Christians are supposed to follow) has morphed from "as you would have them do unto you" into "before they do it to you."
Bush is doing it at the G8 right now, so it's business as usual for him. America (read Republicans) uber alles.
code: please, but it pleases me not.
Anonymous wrote on June 7, 2007 5:54 PM:It's not "difficult to think about" permanent bases in Iraq. If it were, our President wouldn't have done it.
Seriously though folks. While we don't want to think about it -- it's going to happen. We have a couple of trillion dollars committed to it, and while a freed Iraq isn't as accommodating as our leaders thought it would be back in '01, we are going to have to produce a chicken sandwich from this chicken shit.
We have no longer have alternatives. Our economy and our military aren't going to switch to a homegrown alternative fuel in the next fifty years, and as oil becomes more scarce the more we will have to push people around to get our supply. You can't do that without a very strong military backed by a strong economy.
I'd like to join those in denial, but I can't. I'd like to be wrong -- please show me how.
Here's how it looks: Any Candidate for President who doesn't allow the option of permanent Iraqi bases, if not on the basis of protecting our oil supplies, then as a bulwark against Iran and Russia in the region will lose in '08. Unless, of course the voters decide that second or third best on the world stage is OK for the US.
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 1:22 PM:Sounds like spinning to me. "We don't seek them" but if we're forced to keep them we will. What will force us? Heck, we gotta fight them over there! Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been listening for the past few years or is willfully ignorant.
d