Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq
TonyZ2001
Sat Apr 19, 2:55 PM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 19 The United States is planning a long-term military
relationship with the emerging government of Iraq (news - web sites), one that
would grant the Pentagon (news - web sites) access to military bases and
project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush
administration officials say.
American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining
perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the
international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in
the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert,
along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air
field in the Kurdish north.
The military is already using these bases to support continuing operations
against the remnants of the old government, to deliver supplies and relief aid,
and for reconnaissance patrols. But as the invasion force withdraws in the
months ahead, turning over control to a new Iraqi government, Pentagon
officials expect to gain access to the bases in the event of some future
crisis.
Whether that can be arranged depends on relations between Washington and
whoever takes control in Baghdad. If the ties are close enough, the military
relationship could become one of the most striking developments in a strategic
revolution now playing out across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from the
Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.
A military foothold in Iraq would be felt across the border in Syria, and, in
combination with the continuing United States presence in Afghanistan (news -
web sites), it would virtually surround Iran with a new web of American
influence.
"There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq,
similar to Afghanistan," said one senior administration official. "The scope of
that has yet to be defined whether it will be full-up operational bases,
smaller forward operating bases or just plain access."
These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid
withdrawal from Iraq, and the United States is acutely aware that the growing
American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of
empire-building and might create new targets for terrorists.
So without fanfare, the Pentagon has also begun to shrink its military
footprint in the region, trying to ease domestic strains in Turkey and Jordan.
In a particularly important development, officials said the United States was
likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well. The main reason for
that presence, after all, was to protect the Saudi government from the threat
Iraq has posed since its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Already, in Turkey, where a newly elected government bowed to domestic pressure
and denied the Pentagon access to bases and supply lines for the war with Iraq,
the United States has withdrawn nearly all of its 50 attack and support
airplanes at the Incirlik air base, from which they flew patrols over Iraq's
north for more than a decade.
Turkish officials say a new postwar security arrangement with Washington will
emerge.
"These issues will define a new relationship and a new U.S. presence abroad,"
said Faruk Logoglu, Turkey's ambassador to the United States. "But the need for
an American presence in the region will not be diminished."
Regardless of how quickly the Americans reverse the buildup of the last several
months, it is plain that since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a concerted
diplomatic and military effort to win permission for United States forces to
operate from the formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, across the
Mediterranean, throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and across
Central Asia, from the periphery of Russia to Pakistan's ports on the Indian
Ocean.
It is a swath of Western influence not seen for generations.
These bases and access agreements have established an expanded American
presence, or deepened alliance ties, throughout one of the world's most
strategic regions.
"The attacks of Sept. 11 changed more than just the terrorism picture," said
one senior administration official. "On Sept. 11, we woke up and found
ourselves in Central Asia. We found ourselves in Eastern Europe as never
before, as the gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East."
The newest security agreements will come in Iraq. Col. John Dobbins, commander
of Tallil Forward Air Base, said the Air Force plan envisioned "probably two
bases that will stay in Iraq for an amount of time."
"That amount of time, obviously, is an unknown," he added.
In addition to Tallil, the other base for the Air Force is at Bashur, in the
north, Pentagon officials said. The Army currently holds the Baghdad airport.
The H-1 base in the west has allowed Special Operations forces to move out of
their secret bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and set up a forward
headquarters.
The establishment of these bases follows the strategy used in Afghanistan,
where the American military first seized Forward Operating Base Rhino in the
desert south of Kandahar, before moving that headquarters into the city. The
American military has its senior headquarters in Afghanistan at Bagram airfield
outside of Kabul, and it has a number of regional civil affairs offices
elsewhere in the nation.
In Afghanistan, and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to
minimize the size of its deployed forces, and there will probably never be an
announcement of permanent stationing of troops.
Not permanent basing, but permanent access is all that is required, officials
say.
For the Afghan conflict, the Pentagon negotiated new basing agreements with
Pakistan and two former Soviet republics, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. But the
arrangements also signaled a long-term commitment to the region and gave the
military the ability to deploy forces there quickly.
Although the new bases in Iraq are primarily for mounting comprehensive postwar
security operations, senior administration officials make no secret that the
American presence at those bases near Syria and Iran and long-term access to
them "will make them nervous."
Or as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell put it on Thursday: "We have been
successful in Iraq. There is a new dynamic in that part of the world."
Even so, administration officials are quick to echo Mr. Powell's assertions
that Washington has "no war plan right now" for Syria and Iran.
"So don't ask if our tanks are going to move right or left out of Iraq," said
one senior administration official. "There are a lot of political weapons that
can be unleashed to achieve our goals."
Among the pressures to be exerted against Syria will be a campaign to focus the
world's attention on a new administration message. "Syria occupies Lebanon,"
one senior administration official said. "This is the repression of one Arab
state by another. Plus there are terror training camps in the Bekaa Valley."
In addition to tamping down public anxiety over possible military action
against Syria, or even Iran, officials are quick to argue that these two
nations have the most significant vote as to whether the United States will
ever apply the template of "regime change" in Iraq to them.
"This does not mean, necessarily, that other governments have to fall," one
senior administration official said. "They can moderate their behavior."
Administration officials express keen awareness that they must show humility,
and not hubris, in the aftermath of their quick victory in Iraq. "We need to be
flexible, and modulate our actions according to the political interests of our
allies," said one senior administration official.
The senior official predicted that the American military would "modulate our
footprint" in Saudi Arabia, which was so concerned about its role in the air
war against Iraq that it blocked Pentagon efforts to station correspondents
there.
Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who directed the air war from a sophisticated
command center outside of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is expected to meet with senior
Saudi officials in the next few days to continue discussions about the future
of the American military presence there, a senior military official said.
But administration, Pentagon and military officials say it is unlikely that
American forces will withdraw completely from the desert kingdom. Military
officials are discussing a range of options.
In the Iraq war, American and British warplanes flew from 30 bases in about a
dozen countries. In the postwar period, a senior military official said, "We
will draw down from those 30 bases, but in a way that will allow us to flex or
increase, when we need to."
The roles of many countries in support of the American war effort are only now
coming to light.
Two Eastern European countries eager to join NATO (news - web sites) quickly
offered logistics bases when Turkey blocked the Pentagon's request to base
support planes on its soil.
Romania allowed the American military to fly troops, cargo, fuel and vehicles
from Europe aboard C-130, C-141 and C-17 transport planes from an air base near
the Black Sea port of Constanta. Eight to 10 planes fly missions to Iraq from
the base.
About 200 miles to the south, in Burgas, Bulgaria, the authorities opened a
training camp and adjacent airfield to 400 Air Force personnel and about six
KC-10 refueling planes.
Before the war started, some 900 Army troops established a training camp for
Iraqi exiles at Taszar in Hungary, a new NATO member. The Iraqis were
dispatched to serve as guides, interpreters and scouts for American ground
troops in Iraq.
In the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon struck a new agreement with Qatar to allow
Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the allied commander in the region, to establish his
wartime headquarters outside of Doha, the capital, and to send many combat
aircraft to Al Udeid air base, after the Saudis would not allow missions to be
flown from their territory.
Bahrain and especially Kuwait, the staging area for the ground invasion,
provided essential bases for the Iraq war. But with Iraq occupied, the Pentagon
will now review its long-term force and access requirements in the gulf states.
"The subject of a footprint for the United States post-Iraq is something that
we're discussing and considering," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
this week. "But that will take some time to sort through."
Woodswun
>Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq
>Sat Apr 19, 2:55 PM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!
>
>
>By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times
>
>WASHINGTON, April 19 The United States is planning a long-term military
>relationship with the emerging government of Iraq (news - web sites), one that
>would grant the Pentagon (news - web sites) access to military bases and
>project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush
>administration officials say.
It's appearing more and more that the Iraqi civilian population wants the US
*out* ASAP, which means that anyone supporting permanent US bases in Iraq is
not likely to win a democratic election. I don't see where the Bush
administration thinks the idea of giving long-term access to military
bases will fly in the new Iraq.
Woods
John F Lemke
this was in the planning from the beginning.
A report on CBS's Sunday morning gave a tour of American planning for
post-Saddam Iraq. We've been organizing and developing "Western Iraqi"
exiles for administrative positions in the next Iraqi government for quite
some time. These exiles will administer a western style agenda including a
new pro-west format in the new Iraqi school system. We're developing
pro-western programs to serve commerce, education, health and welfare, etc.
All this within a freely elected Iraqi government.
Remaking the new Iraq in whose image? We've got a cauldron soon to be
brewing heartily, it seems.
One US government official said, in this report, that we've spent too much
in this war to see another unfriendly dictator come to power in Iraq. It
remains to be seen if we really have the ability to wisely "remake" anything
and end up ultimately forcing to the fore the very government we don't want
to see there.
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:3Kyoa.17668$M_2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
R. Foreman
> And if one has really been on top of things one would have known that
> all of this was in the planning from the beginning.
>
> A report on CBS's Sunday morning gave a tour of American planning for
> post-Saddam Iraq. We've been organizing and developing "Western
> Iraqi" exiles for administrative positions in the next Iraqi
> government for quite some time. These exiles will administer a
> western style agenda including a new pro-west format in the new Iraqi
> school system. We're developing pro-western programs to serve
> commerce, education, health and welfare, etc. All this within a freely
> elected Iraqi government.
>
> Remaking the new Iraq in whose image? We've got a cauldron soon to be
> brewing heartily, it seems.
>
> One US government official said, in this report, that we've spent too
> much in this war to see another unfriendly dictator come to power in
> Iraq. It remains to be seen if we really have the ability to wisely
> "remake" anything and end up ultimately forcing to the fore the very
> government we don't want to see there.
>
That's right. We've already invested too much to see another tin
pot dictator seize the reins. I can't see how the Iraqi people would
want that either, after what they just went through with saddam. Those
people are literally hearing voices and screams of their relatives
coming from holes and tunnels under Baghdad. Hearts and minds...
there's no way they'll go for another dictatorship if they see it
coming.
John F Lemke
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9363888DF40D1rr...@63.240.76.16...
> That's right. We've already invested too much to see another tin
> pot dictator seize the reins. I can't see how the Iraqi people would
> want that either, after what they just went through with saddam. Those
> people are literally hearing voices and screams of their relatives
> coming from holes and tunnels under Baghdad. Hearts and minds...
> there's no way they'll go for another dictatorship if they see it
> coming.
Exactly, hearts and minds............. What we strove for in Viet Nam. Now
it's Arab nationalism, then it was Vietnamese nationalism structured around
communism. What structure will the Iraqi's choose?
In the long run it'll probably be a case of a strong man or a strong
structure gaining dominance. Survival of the fittest? Natural selection?
They want us out, period. Ultimately they'll follow whomever can accomplish
that and they'll have the Al Queda's and the inflamed hearts of their
brethren behind them.
We have to remember that it was a Western imposed structure that led to
Saddam in the first place. I don't think we'll be able to impose any more
on them than we were able to impose anything in Viet Nam. Whatever program
we try to install over there had better assuage much hostility amongst a
variety of groups and interests. If were too "blatant" in our influence we
can look forward to an Iranian style theocracy.
Whatever it is you're about to do, George, do it quickly. Do it well and
get out.
Ed Cregger
Those that oppose the new structure of government, chosen by America, will
find themselves in prison or dead. Those that cooperate will find themselves
living the good life. Just like here in America. We are smart enough to know
that this will take several generations to implement. President Bush warned
us of such early on.
Ed Cregger
" John F Lemke" <jfl...@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:Xtmcncrjs-w...@locallink.net...
Gerald
says...
>
>It's appearing more and more that the Iraqi civilian population wants the US
>*out* ASAP, which means that anyone supporting permanent US bases in Iraq is
>not likely to win a democratic election. I don't see where the Bush
>administration thinks the idea of giving long-term access to military
>bases will fly in the new Iraq.
>
>Woods
>
you think that the US will ensure that a friendly Iraqi govt will cooperate?
500 year leases anyone?
Gerald
Ed Cregger
President Bush "won" the last election without the popular vote. What makes
you think he cannot win the next election without the popular vote?
There is work to be done in the world. A democrat will not hold office again
until either the work is concluded, or the democrat accepts the mantle and
continues the work that is already in progress.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:3Kyoa.17668$M_2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Woodswun
>I think we have learned from our past mistakes, John.
>
>Those that oppose the new structure of government, chosen by America, will
>find themselves in prison or dead.
Sure sounds like colonialism to me ...
Woods
Woodswun
>Ahem...
>
>President Bush "won" the last election without the popular vote. What makes
>you think he cannot win the next election without the popular vote?
I was speaking of the election in *Iraq*, not the US. The Iraqi people are
not likely to vote in someone who supports having US military bases in Iraq.
Hence, no reason for the current US administration to make a sweeping
assumption that they will be having military bases in Iraq for the long term.
(Now, they could certainly consider the possibility, if Iraqis were to elect a
very pro-US leadership, but they should certainly not assume this given the
grumblings that are going on so shortly after having been "liberated").
Woods
Ed Cregger
for it, if I understand it fully. I have had to figure it out for myself, so
I may be wrong in a few areas.
I really don't care if how it is accomplished is "unfair". That region of
the world has a very low value placed upon a human life. I sincerely doubt
if our worst manipulations would cause anywhere near the amount of deaths
that living life in that country would have caused if left to its own
devices. The benefit for all of mankind will be huge. I know, this makes me
a cold blooded schemer. I yam what I yam.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:9_Poa.18902$5f4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Ed Cregger
a model that works and which will be employed once again.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:v2Qoa.18955$5f4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Grantland
>I do not deny that there is a master plan being implemented. I, for one, am
>for it, if I understand it fully. I have had to figure it out for myself, so
>I may be wrong in a few areas.
>
>I really don't care if how it is accomplished is "unfair". That region of
>the world has a very low value placed upon a human life. I sincerely doubt
>if our worst manipulations would cause anywhere near the amount of deaths
>that living life in that country would have caused if left to its own
>devices. The benefit for all of mankind will be huge. I know, this makes me
>a cold blooded schemer. I yam what I yam.
>
>Ed Cregger
You're just an ignorant old fool, Ed. A twisted old cripple with no
learning or world knowledge or foresight, or experience of
consequences. Vietnam vet? Get real. You should kill yourself now.
Do the world a favor.
Grantland
Woodswun
>I do not deny that there is a master plan being implemented. I, for one, am
>for it, if I understand it fully. I have had to figure it out for myself, so
>I may be wrong in a few areas.
>
>I really don't care if how it is accomplished is "unfair".
You do realize that by not caring whether it is "unfair" you are giving up any
right to decry life's unfairness to you, do you not?
IMHO, better to lament the bitter side of what you support, and support it for
good reasons in spite of the potential side effects, than to support it for
selfish reasons (ego, national status/power, negligible increase in
personal safety) and have no cares whatsoever for those who may suffer.
Woods
Dee
Ed Cregger wrote in message ...
>I do not deny that there is a master plan being implemented. I, for one, am
>for it, if I understand it fully. I have had to figure it out for myself,
so
>I may be wrong in a few areas.
A new world order requires money to police the world and buy cooperating
enforcers. The US gov is short of cash right now. There is the matter of
human pride as well.
.......................
Dee
Woodswun wrote in message ...
Rumsfeld said no US military bases in Iraq.
>Woods
Anon Ymous
Same way it did in the new Germany.
S~
Ed Cregger
stuff exists in Jimmy Stewart movies and Sunday school. Nowhere else.
I also learned that politics and corruption are the norm. They are used to
manipulate and fleece the sheep in the world. Just convince them that what
you want to accomplish is for a good cause and they will follow. No matter
how preposterous the proposition may be.
As I said, our interference will most likely cause less death and hardship
than if we leave them alone to their own devices. That's good enough for me.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:wCWoa.13384$_N....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Ed Cregger
to do is neglect to tell the rest of the world that they printed it and
diluted its value. That's been going on for decades.
Like it or not, the NWO is well on its way to becoming a reality.
Ed Cregger
"Dee" <reen...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lZ1pa.34780$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Scimitra
wrote:
>I learned a long time ago that there is no fairness in life, Woodsie. That
>stuff exists in Jimmy Stewart movies and Sunday school. Nowhere else.
>
>I also learned that politics and corruption are the norm. They are used to
>manipulate and fleece the sheep in the world. Just convince them that what
>you want to accomplish is for a good cause and they will follow. No matter
>how preposterous the proposition may be.
>
>As I said, our interference will most likely cause less death and hardship
>than if we leave them alone to their own devices. That's good enough for me.
That's right old man. Can't trust the bloody wogs to keep from killin
each other. White Man's burden old man, White Man's burden.
Ed Cregger
itself.
America is no longer a white nation. Those days ended in the fifties.
Ed Cregger
"Scimitra" <Sci...@drago.net> wrote in message
news:hfo9avgo43mlcu6p4...@4ax.com...
Sean
>I learned a long time ago that there is no fairness in life, Woodsie. That
Exactly, the only time i want to hear the word fair is when you are
talking about the state or county fair, they are the only ones that
exist.
Sean
Dee
to see if that's real American currency.
.................
Woodswun
>We are there on war footing. If you look at Germany and Japan, you will see
>a model that works and which will be employed once again.
We occupied Japan for *years* (don't know about Germany). I don't see the
Arab world tolerating that kind of model being used in Iraq. Besides, we've
been claiming it'll be a short time before we get out, so that won't work.
Woods
Scimitra
wrote:
Yeah, why not? It worked great for the Soviets too, for about 45
years.
Ed Cregger
since they are such great friends with the Russians, who just happen to be
the most active counterfeiters in the world, I doubt that it will be
legitimate currency.
In other words, the Russians scammed the Arabs again!
Ed Cregger
"Dee" <reen...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NQipa.37445$4P1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ed Cregger
win. If they rebel and try to eject us, we annihilate them - we win again.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:Wyjpa.26918$5f4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Scimitra
wrote:
>It is a win-win situation either way. If they permit the occupation then we
>win. If they rebel and try to eject us, we annihilate them - we win again.
>
>Ed Cregger
Damn it, why would any country in their right mind want to resist
being invaded and occupied by a foreign power? Must be crazy.
Woodswun
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:42:30 GMT, "Ed Cregger" <ecre...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It is a win-win situation either way. If they permit the occupation then we
>>win. If they rebel and try to eject us, we annihilate them - we win again.
>>
>>Ed Cregger
>
>Damn it, why would any country in their right mind want to resist
>being invaded and occupied by a foreign power? Must be crazy.
LOL!
Woods
Ed Cregger
ruler to do?
Ed Cregger
"Scimitra" <Sci...@drago.net> wrote in message
news:aubdav0lv810133jl...@4ax.com...
Ed Cregger
satellite receiving equipment. Make it impossible for them to subscribe to
the satellite services. Deny them access to the best education on the
planet.
Rats. I think the Israelis have already tried that.
Ed Cregger
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.dotcom> wrote in message
news:Z9Epa.34569$5f4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...