Hi Jerry,

Congressman Boyd requested more info on the 14 permanent military bases being constructed in Iraq. Though I'm sure the Congressman is aware of this issue, at least in a general sense, I'll paste in a few a the recent news articles that highlight concern on this issue (The first item was waiting in my inbox when I returned home home from our meeting with the Congressman on Mon. June 4th, 2007).

The Bush Regime must be made to follow the law on the issue of permanent bases in Iraq, as well as be held to account for the rest of its general lawlessness...

US is building bases in Iraq By Patrick Seale 04 Jun 2007 Last week, almost unnoticed, the war in Iraq entered a new phase. Laconic statements from the White House and the Pentagon confirmed what had long been suspected - namely that the US is planning a long-term military presence in Iraq... It is a clear statement that, in spite of its current difficulties in Iraq... the US firmly intends to maintain control of Iraq and its vast oil reserves.

Second reference from last week -

Time For Congressional Oversight On Permanent Bases Overlooked in the congressional cave-in to Dubya on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is that the final bill (H.R. 2206) kept in a flat ban on funding permanent bases:

SEC. 3301. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq.

Yet it was only a day after Bush signed the bill into the law that the NY Times reported:

[Senior Bush administration officials] said the proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea.

And when reporters asked WH Press Secretary Tony Snow if the "Korea" parallel means they're planning on staying for 50 years, he danced, saying that's "unanswerable" but "what I'm saying is you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support role."

(See Washingtonpost.com's Dan Froomkin for a great overview.)

That's in sync with what LiberalOasis wrote in April 2006:

The end game is, and always has been, permanent military bases. A permanent military presence gives them the ability to exert influence on the Iraqi government and makes it easier to pressure neighboring countries, or start wars with them. You don't need, or even want, to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to accomplish that. Probably around 30,000 would do.Which is why the Bushies don't flinch at talking about drawdowns in the future, because it's part of the plan anyway.

They've never explicitly talked about staying in Iraq permanently. And now they really can't, because it's unequivocally against the law.

But they're subtly making it clear they're not planning to go anywhere.Which means Congress has the ability to investigate and assess if the White House is breaking the law with those "three or four large bases."

If they don't try to enforce the law that they passed, then the law is meaningless.

Every Democratic presidential candidate is opposed to permanent bases. Some of them are in Congress.

The candidate that actually takes the permanent bases law seriously, takes the lead on oversight, and forcefully challenges the foreign policy objective of permanent occupation, will make a strong impression.

Posted by Bill Scher on May 31, 2007

Also, SecDef Gate's recent comments -

US May Keep Troops in Iraq Well Beyond 2009
Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions "some presence" on the part of the United States that "provides reassurance to our friends and to governments in the region, including those that might be our adversaries, that we're going to be there for a long time," Gates said.

And a recently published NPR report on the Pentagon's plan for permanent bases based on the "Lily-Pad Strategy" is of great concern -

For anyone with hopes of full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, read on. The simple facts of the matter are the US is never going to leave Iraq, not voluntarily, at least...

Pentagon Studies Long-Term Commitment in Iraq by Steve Inskeep and Guy Raz
Morning Edition, May 21, 2007 · The White House and Pentagon are under increasing pressure from Congress and the public to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But the Pentagon is considering maintaining a core group of forces in Iraq, possibly for decades.

Two factors may determine the course of the war in Iraq — political progress inside Iraq and American public opinion. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll finds only 25 percent of Americans say America is moving in the right direction. And Iraq is a big reason for those who think the country is not.

Numbers like that may help to explain a carefully worded public statement this month from Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Testifying before the Senate, he was asked if the Pentagon has made any contingency plans to withdraw from Iraq.

"We have published no orders directing the planning for the overall withdrawal of forces," Pace replied. "We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down, but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown."

The Pentagon has not published any contingency plans on how to deal with Iraq in the event of a large-scale drawdown, but it is discussing various scenarios.

A series of military installations could be maintained around Iraq, with a total of total of 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops, for a long period of time — maybe a few decades. There are currently about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The bases would be located in various strategic locations, ones that served by air landing strips, for instance. The bases would be sealed and U.S. forces wouldn't be on patrols as they are now.

But maintaining a troop presence in Iraq would allow the U.S. military to continue training Iraqi forces. It would also help discourage other countries, like Iran and Turkey, from entering Iraq.

Add to this Bush's stated intent to stay in Iraq using the S. Korea Model and you can see there is cause for great concern.

Congress MUST exercise its authority and reign in this rogue misadministration. If they won't follow the LAWS CONGRESS HAS ALREADY PASSSED, then more aggressive oversight MUST BE EMPLOYED.

Even if that means impeaching both Bush and Cheney for their crimminal misdeeds.

CP ;>)
Quincy, FL

ps a simple web search turns up a plethora of widely available info on the permanent military base issue... www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=Permanent+military+bases+Iraq

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | |