Imperial Reach- Pentagon's New Basing Strategy

[chlamor]

Imperial Reach
by Michael T. Klare

As the Defense Department begins to look beyond the war in Iraq, a major priority will be to commence a systematic realignment of US forces and bases abroad. This massive undertaking will result in a substantial reduction of American forces in Germany and South Korea, and the establishment of new facilities in Eastern Europe, the Caspian Sea basin, Southeast Asia and Africa. Tens of thousands of troops (and their dependents) now stationed abroad will be redeployed to the United States, while fresh contingents will be sent to areas that have never before housed a permanent US military presence. These steps are largely justified in terms of military effectiveness--to eliminate obsolete cold war facilities and ease the transport of American troops to likely scenes of conflict. Underlying the planning, however, is a new approach to combat and a fresh calculus of the nation's geopolitical interests.

<snip>

Normally, Pentagon officials are reluctant to ascribe US strategic moves to concern over the safe delivery of energy supplies. Nevertheless, in their explanations of the need for new facilities, the oil factor has begun to crop up. "In the Caspian Sea you have large mineral reserves," observed General Charles Wald, deputy commander of the US European Command (Eucom), in June 2003. "We want to be able to assure the long-term viability of those resources." Wald has also spoken of the need for bases to help protect oil reserves in Africa (which falls under the purview of the EUCOM). "The estimate is in the next ten years, we will get 25 percent of our oil from there," he declared in Air Force magazine. "I can see the United States potentially having a forward operating location in São Tomé," or other sites in Africa.

<snip>

Normally, Pentagon officials are reluctant to ascribe US strategic moves to concern over the safe delivery of energy supplies. Nevertheless, in their explanations of the need for new facilities, the oil factor has begun to crop up. "In the Caspian Sea you have large mineral reserves," observed General Charles Wald, deputy commander of the US European Command (Eucom), in June 2003. "We want to be able to assure the long-term viability of those resources." Wald has also spoken of the need for bases to help protect oil reserves in Africa (which falls under the purview of the EUCOM). "The estimate is in the next ten years, we will get 25 percent of our oil from there," he declared in Air Force magazine. "I can see the United States potentially having a forward operating location in São Tomé," or other sites in Africa.

Of the dozen or so locations mentioned in Pentagon or media accounts of new basing locations, a majority--including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Gabon, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tunisia--either possess oil themselves or abut major pipelines and supply routes. At the same time, many of these countries house terrorist groups or have been used by them as staging areas. And, from the Pentagon's perspective, the protection of oil and the war against terrorism often amount to one and the same thing. Thus, when asked whether the United States was prepared to help defend Nigeria's oilfields against ethnic violence, General Wald replied, "Wherever there's evil, we want to go there and fight it."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050425&c=2&s=klare

[Old and In the Way]

1. We ought to be including the $400BB/year defense budget when we

calculate the cost of a barrel of oil. If we did that, we could begin justifying alternative energy strategies. Of course, that will never happen as long as Big Oil controls our government.

[teryang]

2. Wherever there is evil?

Operating at children's cartoon level of analysis. The General is clearly qualified for top level positions in the neo-con administration. It seems that American corporate interests in foreign markets are now equated with the national security interest, an absurd proposition at best.

This article however is excellent. Don't we wish it were true that the tenuous lines of communication we maintain with eastern European and central Asian countries changes "the center of gravity of American military capabilities from the western and eastern fringes of Eurasia to its central and southern reaches, and to adjacent areas of Africa and the Middle East."

This notion is delusional. The military facilities in central and southwestern Asia are diaphanous in their substance and have little military potential or wherewithal. Virtually none could withstand a determined military attack. The truth is that they are designed to meddle in the internal affairs of host countries that our aristocracy wishes to turn into willing colonial outposts for American corporatism. The defense contractors and aerospace interests are eating it up, the tax dollars that is. Militarily these bases are virtually worthless liabilities. They exist solely as subsidies and infrastructure for private corporate interests.

[dbeach]

3. Caspian Sea Basin has $5 to $10 trillion in oil and gas...

according to different sources...

busheviks are ONLY in it for the money...
money for the pwer elites....police state for the commoners


http://www.peacenowar.net/Nov%208%2001--Oil.htm
"We have synthesized a number of current analyses into some key facts about how oil ties into the US government's long time involvement in Central Asia and its hopes of accessing the oil and gas riches of the area. Oil is clearly not the only force operating, and this is not a comprehensive analysis, but it is an important piece of a complicated political and economic struggle.

The United States has yet to provide concrete evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, but has pursued a bombing campaign anyway against the Taliban and bin Laden with millions of innocent Afghanis caught in the middle. Some analysts are projecting a post-war Afghanistan where the US military is used as "pipeline police." Following are some key points in how US oil interests play into the current so-called "war on terrorism.""