|
Web site or page |
Site [Self] Description or Author Description |
Assertions |
|
April 20 2003 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E0D8123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63 |
All the news that's fit to print. |
A NATION AT WAR: STRATEGIC SHIFT; PENTAGON EXPECTS LONG-TERM ACCESS TO KEY IRAQ BASESIn Afghanistan and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to minimize the size of its forces, and there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops. Permanent access is all that is required, not permanent basing, officials say. |
|
April 21 2003 |
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld |
“I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.” –
|
|
April 11, 2005 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/milcon041105.pdf |
From their 2005 document “Military Construction in Support of Afghanistan and Iraq” addresses the VY2005 supplemental requesting “$1.0 billion for military construction to support Afghanistan and Iraq”.
|
|
|
|
The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is the largest peace lobby in Washington, DC. |
The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?
“In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah. “ |
|
January 4 2006 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb008564-7cc6-11da-936a-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1 |
The writer [Gary Hart], a former US senator, was twice a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. |
Any attempt to find out whether the US is, or is not, constructing permanent military bases meets with frustration. The few who have attempted to get a direct answer to this question are met with evasion and purposeful confusion over what is or is not "permanent". .... let us define "permanent" as: fixed, solid, durable and lasting. In practical terms, that means pouring concrete and welding steel, not tents and ditch latrines. ... |
|
Feb 15 2006 http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/15/tomengelhardt/ |
|
The Bush administration claims the U.S. intends to leave Iraq. But its massive military "super-bases" tell a different story. The press won't even put the words "base," "permanent" and "Iraq" in the same paragraph 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. ....for a period, the Pentagon ..... called the big bases in Iraq "enduring camps," .........They were later relabeled .... "contingency operating bases." |
|
March 21 2006 |
Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future. ...Every day activists are making news and speaking out on the issues of our time. But far too often the filter of the corporate-media ignores those voices. |
Extended
Presence of U.S. in Iraq Looms Large |
|
April 6 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5328582 |
NPR (National Public Radio) is an internationally acclaimed producer and distributor of noncommercial news, talk, and entertainment programming. A privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization, NPR serves a growing audience of 26 million Americans each week in partnership with more than 860 independently operated, noncommercial public radio stations.
|
Buzz of Permanent Iraq Bases Irks Congressby Vicky O'Hara Listen Now [4 min 30 sec] All Things Considered, April 6, 2006 · Members of Congress are becoming increasingly concerned that the United States is planning to keep permanent military bases in Iraq. In public comments, Pentagon leaders have not ruled out the possibility. At the moment, the military is trying to consolidate its bases in Iraq into fewer, but larger facilities. |
|
Nov 17 2006 |
The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred. |
As the New York Times revealed in a front-page piece by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt on April 19, 2003, just after Baghdad fell, the Pentagon arrived in the Iraqi capital with plans already on the drawing board to build four massive military bases (that no official, then or now, will ever call "permanent"). |
|
June 07 2007 |
Tomdispatch.com is for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of our post-9/11 world and a clear sense of how our imperial globe actually works. Read more about the site's founder and editor Tom Engelhardt and his guest authors. |
How Permanent Are Those Bases? How Enduring Are Those "Enduring Camps"? The Pentagon, that is, arrived in Baghdad with at least a four-base strategy for the long-term occupation of the country already on the drawing boards. These were to be mega-bases, essentially fortified American towns on which those 30,000-40,000 troops could hunker down for a South-Korean-style eternity. The Pentagon was officially not looking for "permanent basing," as it slyly claimed, but "permanent access." From 2003 to the present, the work building, maintaining, and continually upgrading these bases (and their equivalents in Afghanistan) has never ended. Though the huge base-building contracts were given out long ago, consider just a couple of modest contracts of recent vintage. ....... And major base building may not be at an end. Keep your eye on Iraqi Kurdistan. According to Juan Cole, the Kurdish press continues to report rumors that American base-building activities are now switching there. Little is known about this, except that some in Washington consider Iraqi Kurdistan an obvious place to "redeploy" American troops in any future partial withdrawal or draw-down scenarios. |
|
2006 circa http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/10bases.htm |
Global
Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations,
promotes accountability of global decisions, educates and
mobilizes for global citizen participation, |
Though Pentagon budgets have made it impossible to determine precisely the sums devoted to Iraq base construction, considerably more than a billion dollars has been spent on these special bases. In the 2006 supplemental budget, $348 million was allocated for further construction.
|
|
July 26 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |
|
House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq |
|
Nov 27 2007 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/11/permanent_bases_in_iraq_how_ab.html |
William M. Arkin on 'National and Homeland Security'
|
.... yesterday's agreement between the United States and Iraq ..... For many, including Talking Point Memo and Keith Olbermann, the agreement reverses earlier pledges that the U.S. would not seek permanent bases. It thus becomes part of another Bush lie.
|