US and UK forces establish 'enduring bases' in Iraq
Despite talk of withdrawal 'when the job is done', there are signs that
coalition troops will be there for the long term
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 02 April 2006
The Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of
dollars establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the
prospect that US and UK forces could be involved in a long-term deployment
in the country. It said it assumed British troops would operate one of the
bases.
Almost ever since President Bush claimed an end to "major combat
operations" in Iraq on 1 May 2003, debate has focused on how quickly
troops could be withdrawn. The US and British governments say troops will
remain in Iraq "until the job is done". Yet while the withdrawal of a
substantial number of troops remains an aim, it has become increasingly
clear that the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are preparing to
retain some forces in Iraq for the longer term. The US currently has
around 130,000 troops in Iraq; Britain has 8,000.
Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman for the coalition forces'
headquarters in Iraq, told The Independent on Sunday: "The current plan is
to reduce the coalition footprint into six consolidation bases - four of
which are US. As we move in that direction, some other bases will have to
grow to facilitate the closure [or] transfer of smaller bases."
He added: "Right now, I don't have any information that tells me which
nationality will comprise the remaining two bases, though my assumption is
that at least one will be run by the Brits." An MoD spokesperson said
British forces were currently operating out of eight bases in southern
Iraq, with a small contingent based in Baghdad, and that "discussions with
coalition forces relating to future basing are still at a very early
stage. Nothing has been agreed."
The official added: "We have no intention of remaining, or indeed
retaining bases in Iraq long-term. We will leave Iraq as soon as the
democratically elected Iraqi government is confident that its security
forces have the capability and capacity to counter terrorism and to
preserve the security of democracy there."
A senior military source recently told the IoS that some British troops
could be expected to stay in Iraq in a training role for years to come.
There would be no British presence in the urban areas, however. The
American and British governments say they remain in Iraq at the invitation
of the interim Iraqi government, and would leave if asked to do so.
The Pentagon says it has already reduced the number of US bases from 110 a
year ago to a current total of around 75. But at the same time it is
expanding a number of vast, highly defended bases, some in the desert away
from large population areas. More than $280m (£160m) has already been
spent on building up Al Asad air base, Balad air base, Camp Taji and
Tallil air base, and the Bush administration has this year requested
another $175m to enlarge them. These bases, which currently house more
than 55,000 troops, have their own bus routes, pizza restaurants and
supermarkets.
Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and a persistent critic of
the Iraq war, said it would be "very, very worrying" if British troops
were to be involved in a long-term deployment. "Certainly the mood music
has all been about the withdrawal of troops," he said. "Now we are just
starting to see the glimmers of what may be the real policy."
Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term US military
presence in Iraq was always one of the reasons behind the 2003 invasion.
Joseph Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said: "The Bush
administration's intention is to have a long-term military presence in the
region ... For a number of years the US has sought to use a number of
means to make sure it dominates in the Middle East ... The Bush
administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops
and bases for years to come."
Zoltan Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College in Washington,
said: "After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has
left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a
foothold. The new string of bases stretch from Kosovo and adjacent Balkan
states, to Iraq and other Persian Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other
central Asian states ... The only two obstacles to a geographically
contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria."
The US and UK repeatedly say the timetable is dependent upon success in
training Iraqi forces. Progress in this area has been slow; in February
the Pentagon admitted the only Iraqi battalion judged capable of fighting
without US support had been downgraded, requiring it to fight with
American troops.
The Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of
dollars establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the
prospect that US and UK forces could be involved in a long-term deployment
in the country. It said it assumed British troops would operate one of the
bases.
Almost ever since President Bush claimed an end to "major combat
operations" in Iraq on 1 May 2003, debate has focused on how quickly
troops could be withdrawn. The US and British governments say troops will
remain in Iraq "until the job is done". Yet while the withdrawal of a
substantial number of troops remains an aim, it has become increasingly
clear that the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are preparing to
retain some forces in Iraq for the longer term. The US currently has
around 130,000 troops in Iraq; Britain has 8,000.
Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman for the coalition forces'
headquarters in Iraq, told The Independent on Sunday: "The current plan is
to reduce the coalition footprint into six consolidation bases - four of
which are US. As we move in that direction, some other bases will have to
grow to facilitate the closure [or] transfer of smaller bases."
He added: "Right now, I don't have any information that tells me which
nationality will comprise the remaining two bases, though my assumption is
that at least one will be run by the Brits." An MoD spokesperson said
British forces were currently operating out of eight bases in southern
Iraq, with a small contingent based in Baghdad, and that "discussions with
coalition forces relating to future basing are still at a very early
stage. Nothing has been agreed."
The official added: "We have no intention of remaining, or indeed
retaining bases in Iraq long-term. We will leave Iraq as soon as the
democratically elected Iraqi government is confident that its security
forces have the capability and capacity to counter terrorism and to
preserve the security of democracy there."
A senior military source recently told the IoS that some British troops
could be expected to stay in Iraq in a training role for years to come.
There would be no British presence in the urban areas, however. The
American and British governments say they remain in Iraq at the invitation
of the interim Iraqi government, and would leave if asked to do so.
The Pentagon says it has already reduced the number of US bases from 110 a
year ago to a current total of around 75. But at the same time it is
expanding a number of vast, highly defended bases, some in the desert away
from large population areas. More than $280m (£160m) has already been
spent on building up Al Asad air base, Balad air base, Camp Taji and
Tallil air base, and the Bush administration has this year requested
another $175m to enlarge them. These bases, which currently house more
than 55,000 troops, have their own bus routes, pizza restaurants and
supermarkets.
Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and a persistent critic of
the Iraq war, said it would be "very, very worrying" if British troops
were to be involved in a long-term deployment. "Certainly the mood music
has all been about the withdrawal of troops," he said. "Now we are just
starting to see the glimmers of what may be the real policy."
Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term US military
presence in Iraq was always one of the reasons behind the 2003 invasion.
Joseph Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said: "The Bush
administration's intention is to have a long-term military presence in the
region ... For a number of years the US has sought to use a number of
means to make sure it dominates in the Middle East ... The Bush
administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops
and bases for years to come."
Zoltan Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College in Washington,
said: "After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has
left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a
foothold. The new string of bases stretch from Kosovo and adjacent Balkan
states, to Iraq and other Persian Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other
central Asian states ... The only two obstacles to a geographically
contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria."
The US and UK repeatedly say the timetable is dependent upon success in
training Iraqi forces. Progress in this area has been slow; in February
the Pentagon admitted the only Iraqi battalion judged capable of fighting
without US support had been downgraded, requiring it to fight with
American troops.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article355178.ece
.
|
|
| User: "Jan Rasmussen" |
|
| Title: Re: US And UK Forces Establish 'Enduring Bases' In Iraq |
02 Apr 2006 02:48:28 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:e0p7h10ql7@enews1.newsguy.com...
US and UK forces establish 'enduring bases' in Iraq
Despite talk of withdrawal 'when the job is done', there are signs that coalition troops will be there for the long term,,,,
From 'The Oil Factor',
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/fs2002/bases-2.wmv 900kb 105sec.
Jan Rasmussen
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
