[Peace-discuss] Iraq: Permanent U.S. Colony

[Morton K. Brussel]

One more article to absorb. My apologies.

It implies that not only should we be demanding that all U.S.  troops  
must leave Iraq, but that our embassy there has to be abandoned; it  
is to be a wasp's nest of empire. mkb

Iraq: Permanent US Colony
by Dahr Jamail
March 17, 2006
dahrjamailiraq.com
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend 
Why does the Bush Administration refuse to discuss withdrawing  
occupation forces from Iraq? Why is Halliburton, who landed the no- 
bid contracts to construct and maintain US military bases in Iraq,  
posting higher profits than ever before in its 86-year history?

Why do these bases in Iraq resemble self-contained cities as much as  
military outposts?

Why are we hearing such ludicrous and outrageous statements from the  
highest ranking military general in the United States, Chairman of  
the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, who when asked how  
things were going in Iraq on March 9th <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 
11654734/> in an interview on "Meet the Press" said, "I'd say they're  
going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would  
say they're going very, very well from everything you look at."

I wonder if there is a training school, or at least talking point  
memos for these Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because Pace's  
predecessor, Gen. Richard Myers, told Senator John McCain last  
September that "In a sense, things are going well [in Iraq]."

General Pace also praised the Iraqi military, saying, "Now there are  
over 100 [Iraqi] battalions in the field."

Wow! General Pace must have waved his magic wand and materialized all  
these 99 new Iraqi battalions that are diligently keeping things safe  
and secure in occupied Iraq. Because according to the top US general  
in Iraq, General George Casey, not long ago there was only one Iraqi  
battalion (about 500-600 soldiers) capable of fighting on its own in  
Iraq.

During a late-September 2005 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing  
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/
2005-09-29-iraq-withdrawl_x.htm>,
Casey acknowledged that the Pentagon estimate of three Iraqi  
battalions last June had shrunk to one in September. That is less  
than six months ago.

I thought it would be a good idea to find someone who is qualified to  
discuss how feasible it would be to train 99 Iraqi battalions in less  
than six months, as Pace now claims has occurred.

I decided that someone who was in the US Army for 26 years and who  
worked in eight conflict areas, starting in Vietnam and ending with  
Haiti, would be qualified. If he had served in two parachute infantry  
units, three Ranger units, two Special Forces Groups and in Delta  
Force that would be helpful as well. And just to make sure, if he  
taught tactics at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama and  
Military Science at the United States Military Academy at West Point,  
thus knowing a thing or two about training soldiers, that would be a  
bonus.

That person is Stan Goff.

"This is utter bullshit," was Goff's remark about the Pace claim of  
having 100 Iraqi battalions when I asked him to comment, "He must be  
counting the resistance among his forces."

Goff adds, "That dip-shit [Pace] is saying he has 60,000 trained and  
disciplined people under arms ... 65,000 with all the staffs ... and  
almost 100,000 with the support units they would require. To train  
and oversee them would require thousands of American advisors. It  
must suck for a career Marine to be used so blatantly as a PR flak."

Goff mentioned that Pace "and everyone else" knows that the Iraqi  
forces, "however many there are," are heavily cross-infiltrated.

"He [Pace] is saying that the Bush administration is going to empower  
a pro-Iranian government with 100 ready battalions, when this  
administration was handed this particular government as the booby  
prize in exchange for Sistani pulling their cookies out of the fire  
during the joint rebellions in Najaf and Fallujah," added Goff.

Further discrediting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Goff  
said, "To train 99 [battalions] since last September is a claim only  
the average American might swallow. The right question to ask is,  
where are they? Where are they headquartered, and where are they in  
operation?
Claiming operations security doesn't count, unless they believe they  
can hide 100 units of 600 people each in Iraq ... from other  
Iraqis ... who are often related to them."

He concludes, "These guys have become accustomed to saying any damn  
thing, then counting on ignorance and apathy at home - along with  
hundreds of Democrats who need spine transplants - to get away with it.
You can quote me on any of that."

There's a good reason why Pace and others are busy spewing smoke -  
it's to hide the fact that there are no plans to leave Iraq.

While we're addressing propaganda, we mustn't leave out our brilliant  
military strategist and warrior for protecting human rights, the  
illustrious Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

On March 8th, Rice delivered the opening remarks on the release of  
her Department's "2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices  
<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61550.htm>."

The introduction to the report says: "In Iraq, 2005 was a year of  
major progress for democracy, democratic rights and freedom. There  
was a steady growth of NGOs and other civil society associations that  
promote human rights."

Uh, right
<http://209.97.202.24/gallery/view_album.php? 
set_albumName=sbs_dateline_abu_ghraib_torture_photos
_images_iraq_documentary_australia_february_16_2006>.

This report is submitted to Congress by the State Department. I've  
often wondered if our politicians are just this ignorant, or simply  
horrifically misinformed like so many Americans. This report,  
perhaps, answers the latter.

My point is, if there is a concerted effort by high-ranking officials  
of the Bush administration to portray things in Iraq as going well,  
then why are there permanent bases being constructed in Iraq?

This media smokescreen from the likes of Pace, Rice and even "sharp- 
shooter" Cheney, who recently said things in Iraq are "improving  
steadily," conveniently leads the American people toward believing  
there will eventually be a withdrawal of American soldiers.

But the problem with smokescreens is that pesky thing called "reality."

And in Iraq, the reality is that people like Pace, Rice, Cheney and  
their ever-eloquent front man aren't telling the American public  
about their true plans for Iraq.

One example that provides some insight into their agenda is the US  
"Embassy" which is under construction in the infamous "Green Zone."

As you read this, a controversial Kuwait-based construction firm is  
building a $592 million US embassy <http://www.corpwatch.org/ 
article.php?id=13258> in Baghdad. When the dust settles, this  
compound will be the largest and most secure diplomatic compound in  
the world.

The headquarters, I mean "Embassy," will be a self-sustaining cluster of
21 buildings reinforced 2.5 times the usual standards, with some  
walls to be as thick as 15 feet.

Plans are for over 1,000 US "government officials" to staff and  
reside there. Lucky for them, they will have access to the gym,  
swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, food court and commissary.  
There will also be a large-scale barracks for troops, a school,  
locker rooms, a warehouse, a vehicle maintenance garage, and six  
apartment buildings with a total of
619 one-bedroom units. And luckily for the "government officials,"  
their water, electricity and sewage treatment plants will all be  
independent from Baghdad's city utilities. The total site will be two- 
thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC."

I wonder if any liberated Iraqis will have access to their swimming  
pool?

And unlike the Iraqi infrastructure, which is in total shambles and  
functioning below pre-invasion levels in nearly every area, the US  
"Embassy" is being constructed right on time. The US Senate Foreign  
Affairs Committee recently called this an "impressive" feat,  
considering the construction is taking place in one of the most  
violent and volatile spots on the planet.

Then there are the permanent military bases.

To give you an idea of what these look like in Iraq, let's start with  
Camp Anaconda, near Balad. Occupying 15 square miles of Iraq, the  
base boasts two swimming pools (not the plastic inflatable type), a  
gym, mini-golf course and first-run movie theater.

The 20,000 soldiers who live at the Balad Air Base <http:// 
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/ 
AR2006020302994.html>,
less than 1,000 of whom ever leave the base, can inspect new iPod  
accessories in one of the two base exchanges, which have piles of the  
latest electronics and racks of CDs to choose from. One of the PX  
managers recently boasted that every day he was selling 15  
televisions to soldiers.

At Camp Anaconda, located in al-Anbar province where resistance is  
fierce, the occupation forces live in air-conditioned units where  
plans are being drawn up to run internet, cable television and  
overseas telephone access to them.

The thousands of civilian contractors live at the base in a section  
called "KBR-land," and there is a hospital where doctors carry out  
400 surgeries every month on wounded troops.

Air Force officials on the base claim the runway there is one of the  
busiest in the world, where unmanned Predator drones take off  
carrying their Hellfire missiles, along with F-16's, C-130's,  
helicopters, and countless others, as the bases houses over 250  
aircraft.

If troops aren't up for the rather lavish dinners served by "Third  
Country Nationals" from India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh who  
work for slave wages, they can visit the Burger King, Pizza Hut,  
Popeye's or Subway, then wash it down with a mocha from the Starbucks.

There are several other gigantic bases in Iraq besides camp Anaconda,  
such as Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, which - according to a  
reporter for Mother Jones magazine - when complete will be twice the  
size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The Kosovo base is currently one of  
the largest overseas bases built since the war in Vietnam.

Camp Liberty is adjacent to Camp Victory - where soldiers even  
compete in their own triathlons. "The course, longer than 140 total  
miles, spanned several bases in the greater Camp Victory area in west  
Baghdad,"
says a news article on a DOD web site
<http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2005/a110705dg2.html>.

Mr. Bush refuses to set a timetable for withdrawal <http:// 
www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/> from Iraq because he  
doesn't intend to withdraw. He doesn't intend to because he's  
following a larger plan for the US in the Middle East.

Less than two weeks after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, US  
military officials <http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042103B.shtml>
announced the intention to maintain at least four large bases in Iraq  
that could be used in the future.

These are located near Baghdad International Airport (where the  
triathlon was), Tallil (near Nasiriyah, in the south), one in the  
Kurdish north at either Irbil or Qayyarah (they are only 50 kilometers
apart) and one in western al-Anbar province at Al-Asad. Of course,  
let's not forget the aforementioned Camp Anaconda in Balad.

More recently, on May 22 of last year, US military commanders <http:// 
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/ 
AR2005052100611_pf.html>
announced that they would consolidate troops into four large air bases.
It was announced at this time that while buildings were being made of  
concrete instead of the usual metal trailers and tin-sheathed  
buildings, military officers working on the plan "said the  
consolidation plan was not meant to establish a permanent US military  
presence in Iraq."

Right.

The US has at least four of these massive bases in Iraq. Billions of  
dollars have been spent in their construction, and they are in about  
the same locations where they were mentioned they would be by  
military planners back before Mr. Bush declared that major combat  
operations were over <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/
iraq/main551946.shtml>
in Iraq.

It appears as though "mission accomplished <http://www.cnn.com/2003/ 
ALLPOLITICS/
05/01/bush.carrier.landing/>" in Iraq was not necessarily referring  
to guarding the Ministry of Oil and occupying the country  
indefinitely (or finding WMDs, disrupting al-Qaeda, or liberating  
Iraqis, blah-blah-blah), but to having a military beach-head in the  
heart of the Middle East.

Note that while US officials don't dare say the word "permanent" when  
referring to military bases in Iraq, they will say "permanent access."
An article entitled "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key  
Bases in Iraq," which was a front-page story in the New York Times on  
April 19, 2003, reads: "There will probably never be an announcement  
of permanent stationing of troops. Not permanent basing, but  
permanent access is all that is required, officials say."

Why all of this? Why these obviously permanent bases? Why the beach- 
head?

A quick glance at US government military strategy documents is even  
more revealing.

"Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries  
from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or  
equaling, the power of the United States," reads the 2002 National  
Security Strategy <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html>.

To accomplish this, the US will "require bases and stations within  
and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

Another interesting document is "Joint Vision 2020" from the Chairman  
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose "vision" is "Dedicated  
individuals and innovative organizations transforming the joint force  
of the 21st Century to achieve full spectrum dominance [bold type  
theirs]:
persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of  
conflict [italics theirs]."

US policymakers have replaced the Cold War with the Long War for  
Global Empire and Unchallenged Military Hegemony. This is the lens  
through which we must view Iraq to better understand why there are  
permanent US bases there.

In the Quadrennial Defense Review Report released on February 6,  
2006, there is a stated ambition to fight "multiple, overlapping  
wars" and to "ensure that all major and emerging powers are  
integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the  
international system." The report goes on to say that the US will  
"also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate terms of  
regional or global security. It will attempt to dissuade any military  
competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that  
could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United  
States or other friendly countries, and it will seek to deter  
aggression or coercion. Should deterrence fail, the United States  
would deny a hostile power its strategic and operational objectives."

In sum, what is the purpose of permanent US military garrisons in  
Iraq and the implicit goals of these government documents?

Empire.


More writing, commentary, photography, pictures and images at http:// 
dahrjamailiraq.com

You can visit http://dahrjamailiraq.com/email_list/ to subscribe or  
unsubscribe to the email list.
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related