PDA

View Full Version : Extended presence of U.S. in Iraq looms large


Wabash
07-30-2007, 01:43 PM
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that’s now the home of up to 120 U.S. helicopters, a “heli-park” as good as any back in the States.

At another giant base, al-Asad in Iraq’s western desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of bustling American town, with a Burger King, Pizza Hut and a car dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging the roads.

At a third hub down south, Tallil, they’re planning a new mess hall, one that will seat 6,000 hungry airmen and soldiers for chow.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.

“I think we’ll be here forever,” the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base.

The Iraqi people suspect the same. Strong majorities tell pollsters they’d like to see a timetable for U.S. troops to leave, but believe Washington plans to keep military bases in their country.

Future of U.S. in Iraq
The question of America’s future in Iraq looms larger as the U.S. military enters the fourth year of its war here, waged first to oust President Saddam Hussein, and now to crush an Iraqi insurgency.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, interim prime minister, has said he opposes permanent foreign bases. A wide range of American opinion is against them as well. Such bases would be a “stupid” provocation, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, former U.S. Mideast commander and a critic of the original U.S. invasion.

But events, in explosive situations like Iraq’s, can turn “no” into “maybe” and even “yes.”

The Shiite Muslims, ascendant in Baghdad, might decide they need long-term U.S. protection against insurgent Sunni Muslims. Washington might take the political risks to gain a strategic edge — in its confrontation with next-door Iran, for example.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other U.S. officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from “permanent,” and the official U.S. position is carefully worded.

Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman on international security, told The Associated Press it would be “inappropriate” to discuss future basing until a new Iraqi government is in place, expected in the coming weeks.

‘Permanent duty stations’
Less formally, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about “permanent duty stations” by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was “an interesting question.” He said it would have to be raised by the incoming Baghdad government, if “they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time.”

In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. “If they aren’t planning for bases, they ought to say so,” she said. “I would expect to hear ‘No bases.”’

Right now what is heard is the pouring of concrete.

Charles J. Hanley / AP file
U.S. soldiers eat meals from Burger King in al-Asad air base west of Baghdad. Elaborate bases like this one raise questions about how long the U.S. intends to stay in Iraq.

In 2005-06, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for U.S. military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime.

They have already pulled out of 34 of the 110 bases they were holding last March, said Maj. Lee English of the U.S. command’s Base Working Group, planning the consolidation.

“The coalition forces are moving outside the cities while continuing to provide security support to the Iraqi security forces,” English said.

The move away from cities, perhaps eventually accompanied by U.S. force reductions, will lower the profile of U.S. troops, frequent targets of roadside bombs on city streets. Officers at Al-Asad Air Base, 10 desert miles from the nearest town, say it hasn’t been hit by insurgent mortar or rocket fire since October.

Building in no-man’s land
Al-Asad will become even more isolated. The proposed 2006 supplemental budget for Iraq operations would provide $7.4 million to extend the no-man’s-land and build new security fencing around the base, which at 19 square miles is so large that many assigned there take the Yellow or Blue bus routes to get around the base, or buy bicycles at a PX jammed with customers.

The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield lighting, air traffic control systems and upgrades allowing al-Asad to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid — a typical sign of a long-term base.

At Tallil, besides the new $14 million dining facility, Ali Air Base is to get, for $22 million, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers and a moat — in military parlance, a “vehicle entrapment ditch with berm.”

Here at Balad, the former Iraqi air force academy 40 miles north of Baghdad, the two 12,000-foot runways have become the logistics hub for all U.S. military operations in Iraq, and major upgrades began last year.

Wabash
07-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Army engineers say 31,000 truckloads of sand and gravel fed nine concrete-mixing plants on Balad, as contractors laid a $16 million ramp to park the Air Force’s huge C-5 cargo planes; an $18 million ramp for workhorse C-130 transports; and the vast, $28 million main helicopter ramp, the length of 13 football fields, filled with attack, transport and reconnaissance helicopters.

Turkish builders are pouring tons more concrete for a fourth ramp beside the runways, for medical-evacuation and other aircraft on alert. And $25 million was approved for other “pavement projects,” from a special road for munitions trucks to a compound for special forces.

The chief Air Force engineer here, Lt. Col. Scott Hoover, is also overseeing two crucial projects to add to Balad’s longevity: equipping the two runways with new permanent lighting, and replacing a weak 3,500-foot section of one runway.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/page/2/

toxic
07-30-2007, 02:30 PM
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that’s now the home of up to 120 U.S. helicopters, a “heli-park” as good as any back in the States. ...


How comical.

I was in Vietnam as C-5A's were landing around the clock with new equipment for the South Vietnamese goverment. All the American flags were being painted over on equipment with Vietnamese flags.

RESULT:
When South Vietnam FELL, it was the 3rd largest military power in the world. Only the USA and USSR exceeded it.



The moron-in-chief has repeated every mistake of Vietnam thus far. I guess this is the next move.

April15
07-30-2007, 02:58 PM
Senior Bush wants his place in history so bad. He is willing to sacrifice America to get his legacy. Once he is out Iraq will be dropped like a hot potato.

issac the dragon
07-30-2007, 03:13 PM
O’Hanlon Contradicts His Own Research To Portray Surge As Successful »
In today’s New York Times, Brookings analysts Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack argue that “the administration’s critics seem unaware of the significant changes taking place” as a result of the President’s surge strategy in Iraq.

Just last week — on July 26 — O’Hanlon published a starkly different assessment of the conditions in Iraq. In an updated edition of the Brookings Institute Iraq Index, he wrote:

With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. …

[V]iolence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. …

In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear. …

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. …[I]t is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus. thinkprogress.org

As long as Bush can convince generals to lie on command, we are doing all right. So the sheiks want us their to protect their side in their civil war. It is their war. Why are we still doing this. Are the generals so concerned with their retirement pay, that like Bush they will lie through their teeth? Does anyone in Washington have any morals left?

Wabash
07-30-2007, 03:29 PM
Senior Bush wants his place in history so bad. He is willing to sacrifice America to get his legacy. Once he is out Iraq will be dropped like a hot potato.

Not likely at all!
The NYT and 3 liberals on TV agree with Bush strategy and commitment...The tide is turning.
Hillary, if elected will continue the same policy and we will be there for years to come.

O’Hanlon Contradicts His Own Research To Portray Surge As Successful »
In today’s New York Times, Brookings analysts Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack argue that “the administration’s critics seem unaware of the significant changes taking place” as a result of the President’s surge strategy in Iraq.

Just last week — on July 26 — O’Hanlon published a starkly different assessment of the conditions in Iraq. In an updated edition of the Brookings Institute Iraq Index, he wrote:

With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. …

[V]iolence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. …

In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear. …

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. …[I]t is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus. thinkprogress.org

As long as Bush can convince generals to lie on command, we are doing all right. So the sheiks want us their to protect their side in their civil war. It is their war. Why are we still doing this. Are the generals so concerned with their retirement pay, that like Bush they will lie through their teeth? Does anyone in Washington have any morals left?

See above.