[Peace-discuss] Why Should the Senate Fund "Enduring" U.S. Military Bases in Afghanistan?

[C. G. Estabrook]

  But the US bases in Iraq continue to be funded and built (even if the 
offending phrase is avoided), and the US remains in Iraq in a fashion that is 
clearly long-term.

The US launched the Iraq war with two goals: (1) military bases in the midst of 
the world's greatest energy-producing region, and (2) control of the country 
with the world's second-largest oil reserves.  It's achieved both.

But the policy is regional, including AfPak and Yemen.  The Obama administration 
is pursuing it vigorously, and avoiding the terms "long-term" or "enduring" 
won't change the policy.  Only de-funding it will do that.

On 8/26/10 7:15 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> The documentary record shows that Congress actually rejected funding
> for Pentagon projects in Iraq that "seemed long-term."
>
> It has not done so in the case of Afghanistan.
>
> Therefore, there is a difference that is not merely rhetorical. That
> is an objective fact.
>
> As a matter of personal taste, you may not care about this difference.
> "It's a free country," as we used to say in grade school.
>
> But to say that the difference does not exist, or is merely
> rhetorical, is simply not accurate.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>> What possible good does it do to say that the bases are non-enduring if the
>> money is voted for them?!
>>
>> We need to pressure Congress to vote against funding the war, not to find
>> ways to put lipstick on this murderous pig (to borrow an Obama phrase).
>>
>> Does anyone really believe that that US military construction in Iraq was
>> not "long-term," in spite of pious phrases from the Congress?
>>
>>
>> On 8/25/10 2:30 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> Walter Pincus reports in the Washington Post that the Pentagon is
>> planning to build military bases in Afghanistan for years of U.S.
>> combat. But the Senate could reject or restrict the money for such
>> construction; a step Congress took in 2008, when it rejected a
>> Pentagon request for military construction in Iraq that "seemed
>> long-term."
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/why-should-the-senate-fun_b_694437.html
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/25/15145/7039
>>
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/689
>>
>> Action link for writing to the Senate:
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/afghanistanbases
>>
>> --
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>
>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
>> Afghanistan
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>