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

[C. G. Estabrook]

  But they still built the bases, and Congress continues to fund them.

It was a quite limited victory, if a victory at all.

On 8/26/10 7:52 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>
>