Not-So Endearing Enduring Military Bases In Iraq

[Robbien]

By Mark Drolette

. . .

What I think I'm talking about are the fourteen permanent U.S. military bases currently under construction in Iraq. Yes, that Iraq, the country from which we will militarily withdraw just as soon as we get the word from the completely-free-of-U.S.-influence Iraqi government telling us to go. (Look for snow in Baghdad that day.)

Well, "go," that is, except from the fourteen permanent U.S. military bases currently under construction there. But why quibble over semantics when we're all occupiers and occupied -- I mean, friends -- here? I've tried to learn more about these bases from my elected "representatives," but, for some reason, it's almost like no one in our government wants to talk about them. Weird, huh?

E-mails to both senators have gone unanswered. I expect that from the Republican, Dianne Feinstein (yes, I know her stationery says she's a Dem, but anyone familiar with her politics knows the printer must've goofed), but it is strange I've not heard back from Barbara Boxer, especially since last year her campaign contacted me about seemingly every fund-raiser in the state, no matter how distant -- gigs with cute, down-home names like "Bowling for Barb in Bakersfield" (a scant 300 miles from my home). (I kid the good senator; she actually receives a Drolette Honorary Lifetime Pass from Truly Sharp Criticism for being the only solon with ovaries big enough to try to at least delay the final nail from being hammered into our republic's coffin on January 6, 2005.)

My congressman, Democrat Robert "Don't Ever Rock the Boat" Matsui, to whom I sent a similar query, has since died, which, given past experience, probably doesn't affect my chances one way or the other of receiving a response from his office worth a damn.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00245.htm

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

1. Reminds me of

the old West with the forts and cavalry type of deal.

[reprehensor]

2. Digging In - Mother Jones article.

http://smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=53927&forum=17

Nice find, Robbie!

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. The weapn in the article, JLENS, as the full expansion of its name implies

is a defence against cruise missiles.

The Army is developing a more capable aerostat, the joint land attack cruise missile elevated netted sensor (JLENS), to detect incoming cruise missiles. Team SLAMRAM up with an elevated sensor, such as JLENS, and link it to AMD platforms, including Patriot, Aegis and a common command, control, communications, computers and intelligence system, and you will have an AMD task force that can counter ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, asymmetric aerial threats and unmanned aerial vehicles.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/0/8A2E491656F2F99C85256DFF005DD40F?OpenDocument

Like the author, I get a 'login failed' error when trying to access the study synopsis that the title refers to (and I had to go to the Google cache to get that title). Defending against cruise missiles is a bit of a step up from defending against insurgents (for that, you need proper body armour and Humvee armour, but the Pentagon doesn't seem interested in that ...). It's the kind of thing you'd need if you were going to be there many years, or anticipated a war against a neighbouring country, like, say, Iran - just to pick a neighbouring country totally at random, of course. I could have said Syria instead. Oops.

The fact that JLENS is long term thinking is confirmed by this:

Cruise Missile Defense. $239 million to accelerate the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor System, begin integrating the Surface Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile into the projected Cruise Missile Defense architecture and accelerate development of a joint integrated fire control capability. Goals include contingency capabilities in 2008 and first units equipped in 2010.

Fiscal 2005 Department of Defense Budget

[wiggs]

4. Questions the WH "journalists" will surely ask....

White House journalists should ask of the president or McClellan:

"In light of your assurance that the US will leave Iraq as soon as asked, do you also propose to turn over the 14 military bases constructed over the last two years?"

or

"From what source did the funds for 14 new military bases come from? Was any of the 18 billion authorized by Congress for reconstruction used for building bases?"

or

"What role did the construction of 14 bases play in deciding to invade Iraq?"

or

"What is the cost of building 14 military bases in Iraq and how does that compare to providing armor to military units or fixing social security or funding No Child Left Behind?

or

"What did we get from Saudi Arabia for abandoning bases we had there? Surely we must have sold them for a lot of money?"

or

"What the hell does the construction of 14 bases have to do with liberating Iraq?"

[welshTerrier2]

5. yes, i'm sure they'll be asking these questions any day now ...

My congressman recently returned from Iraq and asked two of the top US Generals why we're building permanent military bases there ... he was told they are "enduring" bases ...

when he asked them what the difference was, they told him that "enduring" bases means that we will use them for as long as we need them and then will turn them over to the Iraqis ...

sounds pretty permanent to me ...

real good questions you raised ...