Can you say Permanent Bases?, The American media can't.

[Guest guest]

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/02/bases_in_iraq.html

 

 

 

Can you say " Permanent Bases " ?

The American media can't.

By Tom Engelhardt

 

February 14, 2006

 

We're in a new period in the war in Iraq -- one that brings to mind

the Nixonian era of " Vietnamization " : A President presiding over an

increasingly unpopular war that won't end; an election bearing down;

the need to placate a restive American public; and an army under so

much strain that it seems to be running off the rails. So it's not

surprising that the media is now reporting on administration plans

for, or " speculation " about, or " signs of, " or " hints " of " major

draw-downs " or withdrawals of American troops. The figure regularly

cited these days is less than 100,000 troops in Iraq by the end of

2006. With about 136,000 American troops there now, that figure would

represent just over one-quarter of all in-country U.S. forces, which

means, of course, that the term " major " certainly rests in the eye of

the beholder.

 

In addition, these withdrawals are -- we know this thanks to a Seymour

Hersh piece, Up in the Air, in the December 5th New Yorker -- to be

accompanied, as in South Vietnam in the Nixon era, by an unleashing of

the U.S. Air Force. The added air power is meant to compensate for any

lost punch on the ground (and will undoubtedly lead to more

" collateral damage " -- that is, Iraqi deaths).

 

It is important to note that all promises of drawdowns or withdrawals

are invariably linked to the dubious proposition that the Bush

administration can " stand up " an effective Iraqi army and police force

(think " Vietnamization " again), capable of circumscribing the Sunni

insurgency and so allowing American troops to pull back to bases

outside major urban areas, as well as to Kuwait and points as far west

as the United States. Further, all administration or military

withdrawal promises prove to be well hedged with caveats and obvious

loopholes, phrases like " if all goes according to plan and security

improves... " or " it also depends on the ability of the Iraqis to... "

 

Since guerrilla attacks have actually been on the rise and the

delivery of the basic amenities of modern civilization (electrical

power, potable water, gas for cars, functional sewage systems, working

traffic lights, and so on) on the decline, since the very

establishment of a government inside the heavily fortified Green Zone

has proved immensely difficult, and since U.S. reconstruction funds

(those that haven't already disappeared down one clogged drain or

another) are drying up, such partial withdrawals may prove more

complicated to pull off than imagined. It's clear, nonetheless, that

" withdrawal " is on the propaganda agenda of an administration heading

into mid-term elections with an increasingly skittish Republican Party

in tow and congressional candidates worried about defending the

President's mission-unaccomplished war of choice. Under the

circumstances, we can expect more hints of, followed by promises of,

followed by announcements of " major " withdrawals, possibly including

news in the fall election season of even more " massive " withdrawals

slated for the end of 2006 or early 2007, all hedged with conditional

clauses and " only ifs " -- withdrawal promises that, once the election

is over, this administration would undoubtedly feel under no

particular obligation to fulfill.

 

Assuming, then, a near year to come of withdrawal buzz, speculation,

and even a media blitz of withdrawal announcements, the question is:

How can anybody tell if the Bush administration is actually

withdrawing from Iraq or not? Sometimes, when trying to cut through a

veritable fog of misinformation and disinformation, it helps to focus

on something concrete. In the case of Iraq, nothing could be more

concrete -- though less generally discussed in our media -- than the

set of enormous bases the Pentagon has long been building in that

country. Quite literally multi-billions of dollars have gone into

them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col.

David Holt, the Army engineer " tasked with facilities development " in

Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being

sunk into base construction ( " the numbers are staggering " ). Since

then, the base-building has been massive and ongoing.

 

In a country in such startling disarray, these bases, with some of the

most expensive and advanced communications systems on the planet, are

like vast spaceships that have landed from another solar system.

Representing a staggering investment of resources, effort, and

geostrategic dreaming, they are the unlikeliest places for the Bush

administration to hand over willingly to even the friendliest of Iraqi

governments.

 

If, as just about every expert agrees, Bush-style reconstruction has

failed dismally in Iraq, thanks to thievery, knavery, and sheer

incompetence, and is now essentially ending, it has been a raging

success in Iraq's " Little America. " For the first time, we have actual

descriptions of a couple of the " super-bases " built in Iraq in the

last two and a half years and, despite being written by reporters

under Pentagon information restrictions, they are sobering. Thomas

Ricks of the Washington Post paid a visit to Balad Air Base, the

largest American base in the country, 68 kilometers north of Baghdad

and " smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq. " In a piece

entitled Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel, Ricks paints a

striking portrait:

 

The base is sizeable enough to have its own " neighborhoods " including

" KBR-land " (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most

of the base-construction work in Iraq); " CJSOTF " ( " home to a special

operations unit, " the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force,

surrounded by " especially high walls, " and so secretive that even the

base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard

for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a

Popeye's, " an ersatz Starbucks, " a 24-hour Burger King, two post

exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess

halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH,

a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones

included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's

O'Hare airport, and " a miniature golf course, which mimics a

battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of

concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be

a tiny detainee cage. "

 

Ricks reports that the 20,000 troops stationed at Balad live in

" air-conditioned containers " which will, in the future -- and yes, for

those building these bases, there still is a future -- be wired " to

bring the troops Internet, cable television and overseas telephone

access. " He points out as well that, of the troops at Balad, " only

several hundred have jobs that take them off base. Most Americans

posted here never interact with an Iraqi. "

 

Recently, Oliver Poole, a British reporter, visited another of the

American " super-bases, " the still-under-construction al-Asad Airbase

(Football and pizza point to US staying for long haul). He observes,

of " the biggest Marine camp in western Anbar province, " that " this

stretch of desert increasingly resembles a slice of US suburbia. " In

addition to the requisite Subway and pizza outlets, there is a

football field, a Hertz rent-a-car office, a swimming pool, and a

movie theater showing the latest flicks. Al-Asad is so large -- such

bases may cover 15-20 square miles -- that it has two bus routes and,

if not traffic lights, at least red stop signs at all intersections.

 

There are at least four such " super-bases " in Iraq, none of which have

anything to do with " withdrawal " from that country. Quite the

contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands

of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration

officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we

seek " permanent " bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with

another voice entirely. These bases practically scream " permanency. "

 

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a

simple rule: The words " permanent, " " bases, " and " Iraq " should never

be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in

fact, not even in the same news report. While a LexisNexis search of

the last 90 days of press coverage of Iraq produced a number of

examples of the use of those three words in the British press, the

only U.S. examples that could be found occurred when 80% of Iraqis

(obviously somewhat unhinged by their difficult lives) insisted in a

poll that the United States might indeed desire to establish bases and

remain permanently in their country; or when " no " or " not " was added

to the mix via any American official denial. (It's strange, isn't it,

that such bases, imposing as they are, generally only exist in our

papers in the negative.) Three examples will do:

 

The Secretary of Defense: " " During a visit with U.S. troops in

Fallujah on Christmas Day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said

`at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases' in Iraq. `It is

a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government.' "

 

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, the Central Command deputy commander for

planning and strategy in Iraq: " We already have handed over

significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis. Those are not simply

plans to do so; they are being executed right now. It is not only our

plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases

in Iraq. "

 

Karen Hughes on the Charlie Rose Show: " CHARLIE ROSE: …they think we

are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants

permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq?

KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in

uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job.

CHARLIE ROSE: And do not want to keep bases there? KAREN HUGHES: No,

we want to bring our people home as soon as possible. "

 

Still, for a period, the Pentagon practiced something closer to truth

in advertising than did our major papers. At least, they called the

big bases in Iraq " enduring camps, " a label which had a certain charm

and reeked of permanency. (Later, they were later relabeled, far less

romantically, " contingency operating bases. " )

 

One of the enduring mysteries of this war is that reporting on our

bases in Iraq has been almost nonexistent these last years, especially

given an administration so weighted toward military solutions to

global problems; especially given the heft of some of the bases;

especially given the fact that the Pentagon was mothballing our bases

in Saudi Arabia and saw these as long-term substitutes; especially

given the fact that the neocons and other top administration officials

were so focused on controlling the so-called arc of instability

(basically, the energy heartlands of the planet) at whose center was

Iraq; and especially given the fact that Pentagon pre-war planning for

such " enduring camps " was, briefly, a front-page story in a major

newspaper.

 

A little history may be in order here:

 

On April 19, 2003, soon after Baghdad fell to American troops,

reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt wrote a front-page piece for

the New York Times indicating that the Pentagon was planning to

" maintain " four bases in Iraq for the long haul, though " there will

probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops. "

Rather than speak of " permanent bases, " the military preferred then to

speak coyly of " permanent access " to Iraq. The bases, however, fit

snugly with other Pentagon plans, already on the drawing boards. For

instance, Saddam's 400,000 man military was to be replaced by only a

40,000 man, lightly armed military without significant armor or an air

force. (In an otherwise heavily armed region, this insured that any

Iraqi government would be almost totally reliant on the American

military and that the U.S. Air Force would, by default, be the Iraqi

Air Force for years to come.) While much space in our papers ha

 

continued:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/02/bases_in_iraq.html