|
|
|
|
One Building That's Been Built on
Time and on Budget in Iraq: America's Fortress Embassy (May 21, 2007)
While the US has made little progress on most of the reconstruction projects in
Iraq, the building of the Baghdad embassy complex is on schedule and will likely
be finished by September 2007. The mammoth embassy will be the biggest and most
expensive on earth and will accommodate 615 staff behind bomb-proof walls.
However, the construction site has already suffered attacks from insurgents as
it is seen by many Iraqis as a symbol of the occupation. According to Iraqi
experts, the embassy “will become an enormous, heavily targeted white elephant.”
(Guardian)
In Iraq, the Tough Go Shopping at
Military Malls (April 1, 2007)
This Washington Post article reveals that while Iraqis face innumerable
hazards in Baghdad and have no access to basic necessities, the US military live
in a completely different reality. Inside the Green Zone, the troops spend most
of their free time shopping in the new military malls, which sell fancy imported
products like motorcycles, jewelry and plasma televisions. Further, the Bush
administration constructed food courts with foreign restaurants like Burger King
in an attempt to recreate life in the US. However, this alienates US soldiers
from the local reality and deepens the gap between them and Iraqis.
“Enduring” U.S. Bases in Iraq (19 March 2007)
It is difficult to believe that with the U.S. establishment having all but conceded defeat in Iraq, and with the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group having signaled that the United States needs the help of its rivals Iran and Syria – as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other influential Middle Eastern nations – to contain the Iraqi civil war, the U.S. is still pursuing the war and building permanent military bases in the disintegrating nation. Yet, this is precisely what the Pentagon is doing.
How Much Embassy Is Too Much? (March
2, 2007)
This Washington Post article points out that the US is building a huge
embassy complex in Baghdad and that the US mission in Iraq is one of the largest
foreign missions the US State Department has ever operated, with a staff of
1,000 employees. Some former State Department officials claim the mega-embassy
is hindering reconstruction efforts. This huge complex is counterproductive as
it has become a key target for violence. Further, many Iraqis see it as an
arrogant enterprise, which aims to show US “superiority.”
Mission Imperial (February 19, 2007)
While most of Iraqis struggle to survive in chaotic Baghdad, US military
personnel and private contractors living in the city face a completely different
reality. Isolated within the borders of the Green Zone, they live in luxurious
villas and have access to modern facilities, such as restaurants, movie
theaters, bars, clubs, a swimming-pool and gymnasiums. The Coalition Provisional
Authority tried to construct an “American way of life” inside the Green Zone,
importing US products and outsourcing services to US companies like Halliburton.
This has further distanced US staff from the local reality and deepened the
differences between them and Iraqis. (Guardian)
Report on Iraq: Long-Term Bases and
the Mammoth Embassy (January 2007)
The United States has been building enormous long-term military bases in Iraq as
well as a mammoth embassy complex in the heart of Baghdad. Though Washington
denies that the bases are “permanent” or that the vast new embassy has a
hegemonic purpose, the elaborate multi-billion dollar construction projects
suggest strategic investment for long-term operational use. Surrounded by
elaborate perimeter security systems, provided with their own water and
electricity, and fitted out with restaurants, swimming pools and movie theaters,
these islands of US power in the heart of the country have come to symbolize the
occupation. (Global Policy Forum and partners)
Iraqi MPs Condemn Talabani for
Welcoming American Military Bases (September 26, 2006)
This Al Hayat piece analyzes Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s recent
calls for more permanent US military bases in Iraq. Critics of Talabani claim
that his statements deliberately aim to undermine Iraqi sovereignty and divide
Iraq’s government. Iraqi MPs say the demands are an attempt to worsen the
security situation and therefore prolong US presence in their country. As the
author points out, the Iraqi president has no authority over the establishment
of permanent US military bases, and that Iraq’s elected parliament should decide
on such matters, as mandated in the Iraqi constitution.
Bush 'Palace' Shielded from Iraqi
Storm (August 26, 2006)
While construction begins on the new US$600 million US embassy in Baghdad, local
residents await basic services such as electricity and running water which still
do not function in their city. As Paul McGeough reveals, the inequalities in
rebuilding Iraq are evident in the extravagance of the embassy building and the
neglect of vital infrastructure for Baghdad’s citizens. (Age)
In The Chaos of Iraq, One Project Is
on Target: A Giant US Embassy (May 3, 2006)
This article from the Times, London reports that while Iraqis are
deprived of electricity and running water, the US is building the biggest
embassy of the world in Baghdad. This huge complex, which covers an area bigger
than the Vatican City, will have an Olympic-size swimming pool, a
state-of-the-art gymnasium, tennis courts, a cinema and restaurants and will
cost US$592 million. The scale of the project suggests the US has long-term
ambitions in Iraq and it is the actual ruling power in the country.
US Building Massive Embassy in
Baghdad (April 14, 2006)
The US embassy complex in Baghdad will be the largest in the world when its
construction is complete, totaling 21 buildings on 104 acres. Rivaling the
Vatican City in size, the US embassy will host its own defense force, water
supply, and electricity plant. The massive complex, which is being built in the
Green Zone near Iraqi government buildings, presents a clear indication “of who
actually exercises power” in Iraq. (Associated Press)
Iraqis Think US in their Nation to
Stay (March 20, 2006)
The US military has been constructing several large bases the size of small
towns with restaurants, car dealerships, and traffic regulations. Despite
building new barracks, runways, and air-traffic control systems, US officials
have avoided the term “permanent bases” when discussing the status of these
facilities. Whether the bases are “long-term,” “enduring” or permanent, however,
the US continues to pour concrete and spend millions of dollars on construction,
leading many to believe the US has no intention of completely withdrawing from
Iraq. (Associated Press)
Abizaid Says US May Want to Keep
Bases in Iraq (March 15, 2006)
US General John Abizaid announced that Washington may seek to maintain a
long-term military presence in Iraq. Along with security concerns, Abizaid
referenced Iraqi oil as a justification for permanent bases, noting that “the
prosperity of [the US] and everybody else in the world depend[s]” on the “free
flow of goods and resources” from Iraq. (Reuters)
A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal? (February
14, 2006)
Aside from token troop reductions, the US has not made any specific commitments
to withdrawing from Iraq. Nonetheless, a complicit US media constantly talks
about “hints” and “signs” of a US withdrawal. As this article from Tom
Dispatch points out, the US media seems blind to the alarming signs of a
permanent US occupation in Iraq, including ongoing construction of four highly
sophisticated and expansive US military bases, complete with golf courses,
football fields, movie theaters, and fast-food restaurant chains.
Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep UK
Troops Permanently in Iraq (February 5, 2006)
Senior UK Defense Ministry officials have indicated that the UK seeks to
maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. Despite plans to begin withdrawing troops
in 2006, Defense officials have acknowledged plans to relocate troops to a
“non-urban location” in southern Iraq near Basra where British troops are
stationed. According to one official, a “training facility” would be retained to
house hundreds of British troops. (Scotsman)
A South Korean Withdrawal (January
26, 2006)
The US occupation of Iraq has been compared to past US military campaigns in
Vietnam and Japan. According to Sawsan Assaf of Baghdad University, South Korea
provides a more appropriate parallel. As was the case in South Korea, Iraq has
become politically and militarily dependent, allowing the US to operate and
retain large military bases as part of its long-term geo-strategic interests,
while advancing an “illusory” strategy of withdrawal. (Bitterlemons-international.org)
An Elephant in Two Rooms (January
18, 2006)
In both Baghdad and Washington, the meaning of withdrawal is “the elephant in
the room.” Most Iraqis, and a growing segment of the US public, want US forces
to end the occupation and withdraw from Iraq. As Gordon Robison of Mideast
Analysis points out, this discussion rarely addresses US plans to establish
permanent bases, which the Bush administration refuses to rule out. In addition,
President Jalal Talabani and the Kurdish faction have voiced support for
permanent US bases, while their Shiite and Sunni counterparts strongly oppose
Washington’s furtive plans.
End this Evasion on Permanent Army
Bases in Iraq (January 4, 2006)
The establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq remains an ominous reality.
Despite increasing calls for a US withdrawal from Iraq, President George Bush
refuses to offer any sort of timetable or the guarantee that the US occupation
will ever fully end. According to former US Senator Gary Hart, the
“neoconservative magicians” have not run out of tricks, and they will continue
to evade questions about permanent US bases in Iraq. (Huffington Post)
Permanent Occupation (September 29, 2005)
US Representative Barbara Lee calls on fellow Congress members to support
legislation that would prohibit any form of permanent US military presence in
Iraq. Despite what Bush administration officials may say, activities on the
ground suggest plans for the construction of permanent US bases. Of the $805
million allocated for military construction in Iraq, the majority - $597 million
- has come in 2005. (In These Times)
Big Guns for Iraq? Not So Fast. (August 28, 2005)
The US faces a military dilemma in Iraq. It does not want to provide the Iraqi
army with military hardware such as tanks, aircraft, and armored vehicles, for
fear that insurgents will use them against US troops. However, the reluctance to
supply Iraqis with these weapons means that the US will maintain a presence in
the country well into the future, supposedly as a “bulwark against chaos.” Also,
the military is currently building four “semi-permanent” bases in Iraq, which
adds to speculation that troops will remain in Iraq for many years. (New York
Times)
Permanent US Bases in Iraq? Experts See a Political
Minefield (August 15, 2005)
Larry Diamond, a former advisor to the US Coalition Provisional Authority, says
the US government should publicly state that it does not plan to build permanent
military bases on Iraqi soil. Opposition to a permanent US military presence in
Iraq, he believes, is driving the insurgency. Another analyst says that
Washington almost certainly plans to keep troops in the country long-term, since
it has made no efforts to provide Iraq with the military hardware essential for
self-defense. (Los Angeles Times)
Operation: Enduring Presence (July 28, 2005)
Despite denials from the Bush administration, the US continues to build
permanent military bases in Iraq, according to foreign policy experts. In May
2005, the US Congress passed an appropriations bill that provides money to the
army for construction of “permanent facilities” in the country, but few media
outlets have examined the issue, and Democratic lawmakers are virtually silent
on the matter in the House and Senate. (AlterNet)
Commanders Plan Eventual Consolidation of US Bases in Iraq
(May 22, 2005)
US military officials intend to build bases in Iraq, using concrete and other
materials that will lend the facilities a “permanent character.” At the same
time, they deny that the US intends to establish a permanent military presence
there. Nevertheless, “the consolidation plan appears to reflect a judgment by US
military commanders that American forces are likely to be in Iraq for some years,”
though commanders refuse to predict how long the deployment will last. (Washington
Post)
'Enduring Bases' in Iraq: US Presence for Decades (October
1, 2004)
Military experts in Washington assume that the new Iraqi government will need US
support and therefore permanent bases in Iraq to avoid civil war between Shiites,
Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq. The plans for “enduring bases” reinforce suspicions
that the US is only interested in oil in Iraq and wants to keep a puppet
government in place in Baghdad. (Iraq News Net)
14 “Enduring Bases” Set in Iraq (March 23, 2004)
US military engineers in Iraq are constructing “an enhanced system” of military
bases throughout Iraq designed to last for many years. Deputy Chief of Operation
for the coalition Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt believes that the US
government’s future policy will require maintaining a significant military
presence in the Middle East based in Iraq, and that military engineers are
preparing “for an eventuality.” (Chicago Tribune)
US to Keep Bases in Iraq (April 21,
2003)
The Pentagon intends to retain four military bases in Iraq after the invasion
force withdraws and the US will maintain a long-term military presence there,
according to a report in the Guardian.
Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/permindex.htm
Read also Sarah Meyer researches:
* US Bases in Iraq: Part I: Baghdad (updated recently)
* US/UK Bases in Iraq, Part II. The South (updated recently)* Iraq: US Permanent Bases - Intentional Obfuscation (cont.)
* Iraq's US/UK Permanent Bases : Intentional Obfuscation
