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

[Robert Naiman]

You missed something, or you're eliding it.

In 2008, Congress rejected a Pentagon request for military
construction in Iraq, not because the Pentagon *called* it "long
term," but because it seemed to Congress that it *was* "long term."
They rejected it not because of what it was called, but because of
what it was. They did not insist on a name change. They refused to
fund the project.

Congress has not made a similar move with respect to military
construction in Afghanistan.

You can claim that such a move would not be sufficiently meaningful to
care about for your personal taste, but you cannot claim that such a
move would not be theoretically possible, because there is a
precedent.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:39 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>  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
>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
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