People are overlooking a big lie coming from the bush* administration

[acmavm]

about their intentions to 'withdraw' the troops when so-called stability in Iraq occurs (which it never will but never mind that fallacy).

The media has completely ignored the fact that there is no intention to ever withdraw. The proof? 14 FRIGGING AIR BASES THAT ARE BEING BUILT AS WE SPEAK. That fact alone makes every statement about withdrawing, regardless of whether it's five years, ten years, or whatever a damn lie. No country would be fourteen airbases anywhere if their intent was to leave the country no matter what bogus conditions are met.

The media are ignoring this issue, acting like it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the attacks by the insurgency or the resentment of the Iraqi people. They know that the intent is to occupy their country permanently. Otherwise why would the US be spending all the moeny allocated for Iraqi reconstruction on building those military installations?

[NC_Nurse]

1. Where'd ya find that info?

I've never heard anything about that. :shrug:

[rvgwinn]

3. Our local Natl Guard

Are being deployed to Iraq. They are combat engineers, that will be going to school for a year to be plumbers, masons, electricians and carpenters. They are being deployed to "support Operation Iraqi Freedom." Being seperated from their families and careers to build another country!Come to think of it, arn't these all Union Jobs?

[htuttle]

6. It was originally covered all the way back in 2003

The New York Times covered it back in April 2003, here's a reprint of that:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042103B.shtml

Here's a reprint of a Chicago Tribune article from March 2004 about it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Also mentioned as one of Mother Jones' top uncovered stories:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/08/08_524.html

And here's a PR blurb from the construction company:
http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp

U.S. Base Construction—The third major mission the army's engineers are engaged in is building facilities for the bed-down of U.S. forces. "Again the numbers are staggering," Holt says. Most of work is being done through KBR. "Interesting program in the several billion dollar range," Holt says.

"Interesting program in the several billion dollar range", indeed...

[acmavm]

9. Here

<snip>
Johnson cuts right to the essential issue, which is not just the plethora of bases, but certain recently-established military installations:

"At the same time, they don't say anything about 14 permanent bases being built in Iraq. Four are already built: Tallil Air Base, Baghdad, the one in the north near Mosul and the one over on the border with Syria. They don't say anything about the bases in Jabuti, in the Saharan Desert, in Mali and places like that."

Neither Kerry nor Bush wants to talk about those particular bases, or what they imply. Whatever their disagreements over particular nuances, both "major" party candidates support the concept of a semi-permanent American military presence in Iraq.

http://www.hongpong.com/hp-archives/topics/militaryindustrial_complex/index.html
**********************************************************************
2. Permanent Bases: Here's another desperately uncovered story of the Iraq War/occupation/war, one I've harped on since April of 2003 -- our permanent bases (charmingly referred to as "enduring camps") in Iraq. The possibility that four of these might be built was discussed on the front page of the New York Times while the invasion of Iraq was still in progress (and vehemently denied by the Pentagon). A year later, in the spring of 2004, the Chicago Tribune had a couple of pieces on the up-to-14 enduring camps being prepared. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, our permanent bases, plans for them, the building of them, and what they might mean, strategically speaking have gone almost completely unmentioned in our media. And enormous as they evidently are, they should be hard to overlook. Here's the only reference I've found, in an obscure engineering journal, to their overall size and the enormity of the funds being pouted into them, based on an email interview with Lt. Col. David (Mark) Holt of the Army Corps of Engineers, "who is tasked with facilities development." It reads:


"U.S. Base Construction--The third major mission the army's engineers are engaged in is building facilities for the bed-down of U.S. forces."'Again the numbers are staggering,' Holt says. Most of work is being done through KBR. 'Interesting program in the several billion dollar range,' Holt says."

Imagine, "in the several billion dollar range" and being built by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. Some of them like Camp Anaconda are evidently comparable in size to the vast Vietnam-era bases that we built in places like Danang. These go unmentioned and yet if you don't grasp that, from the beginning, the Pentagon was planning a major string of "enduring camps" in Iraq, then you really can't grasp why the Bush administration had no exit strategy from that country -- because, of course, it had no plans to depart. These permanent bases also helps explain why the Coalition Provisional Administration of L. Paul Bremer so confidently disbanded the Iraqi military of 400,000 and made plans instead to rebuild a modest-sized force (but not an air force) of perhaps 35,000-40,000 lightly armed, tank-less troops (as was said again and again from the time of the invasion on). Instead of maintaining anything close to a Saddam-sized military, the neocons and Pentagon hawks in Washington planned to stick around and provide the air power and muscle needed in such a heavily armed region ourselves, as indeed is happening, though under far different circumstances than our policy makers imagined. Of all the subjects one can understand not being covered in Iraq right now due to the obvious dangers to foreign reporters, these American bases certainly should be a reasonably safe exception.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/08/08_524.html
*********************************************************************

Having vanquished Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon is planning to establish four US bases in Iraq, according to reports in Washington yesterday.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0421-01.htm

(Okay, this source says four, but notice other sources say 14, which is more likely.)
*********************************************************************

2. Permanent bases. Here's another desperately uncovered story of the Iraq war/occupation/war, one I've harped on since April 2003 - America's permanent bases (charmingly referred to as "enduring camps") in Iraq. The possibility that four of these might be built was discussed on the front page of the New York Times while the invasion of Iraq was still in progress (and vehemently denied by the Pentagon). A year later, in the spring of 2004, the Chicago Tribune had a couple of pieces on the up to 14 enduring camps being prepared. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, permanent US bases, plans for them, the building of them, and what they might mean, strategically speaking, have gone almost completely unmentioned in the US media. And enormous as they evidently are, they should be hard to overlook. Here's the only reference I've found, in an obscure engineering journal, to their overall size and the enormousness of the funds being pouted into them, based on an e-mail interview with Lieutenant-Colonel David (Mark) Holt of the Army Corps of Engineers, "who is tasked with facilities development". It reads:
US Base Construction - The third major mission the army's engineers are engaged in is building facilities for the bed-down of US forces. "Again the numbers are staggering," Holt says. Most of work is being done through KBR. "Interesting program in the several-billion-dollar range," Holt says.
Imagine, "in the several-billion-dollar range" and being built by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. Some of them, such as Camp Anaconda, are evidently comparable in size to the vast Vietnam-era bases that the US built in such places as Danang. These go unmentioned and yet if you don't grasp that, from the beginning, the Pentagon was planning a major string of "enduring camps" in Iraq, then you really can't grasp why the Bush administration had no exit strategy from that country - because, of course, it had no plans to depart. These permanent bases also help explain why the Coalition Provisional Administration of L Paul Bremer so confidently disbanded the Iraqi military of 400,000 and made plans instead to rebuild a modest-sized force (but not an air force) of perhaps 35,000-40,000 lightly armed, tankless troops (as was said again and again from the time of the invasion on). Instead of maintaining anything close to a Saddam Hussein-sized military, the neo-cons and Pentagon hawks in Washington planned to stick around and have the US provide the air power and muscle needed in such a heavily armed region itself, as indeed is happening, though under far different circumstances than our policymakers imagined. Of all the subjects one can understand not being covered in Iraq right now due to the obvious dangers to foreign reporters, these US bases certainly should be a reasonably safe exception.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH21Ak02.html
**********************************************************************
You can keep on trolling the internet and find more evidence of the continued occupation of Iraq, the proof being the air bases that have already been built or are under construction.

[Minimus]

2. this issue has been on my mind also

my nephew is a Navy Seabee (Construction Battalion) in Iraq although he can not tell us what he is doing we know it is related to building bases. And these are not temporary structures.

Interesting website:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_reconstruction.htm

[cheshire]

4. I missed that too, I hear Kerry wants to do that but not from Kerry.

Has * said he would?

[sadiesworld]

8. Hasn't Kerry said that he will not keep permanent bases in Iraq?

I heard that a week or two ago (was it Albright on the Today show?) and was surprised at the time that there wasn't more DU discussion about it. Pretty big divergence from Bushco policy, if true.

[drdigi420]

5. There is ZERO intention of leaving Iraq.

Iraq is to become a strategic launchpad for all middle eastern wars, as per PNAC: http://www.newamericancentury.org

[wurzel]

7. Iraqis believe Administration involved in 911. Crazy.! But

no crazier than Americans who believe we are bombing Iraq to give them "democracy!

[StClone]

10. Concrete /cement prices up due to Iraq airbase

I caught a story that construction prices are up because of the huge world demand for concrete to build air stripes in Iraq.