All Your Base Are Belong To Us

Mexed missages. Yep, I spelled that wrong on purpose just to give you a sense of the confusion that I'm about to illustrate. Will we have permanent military bases in Iraq? Of course we will. No one in this administration will admit that outright, but you can count on it being certain. Rumsfeld says that determination will be made by the incoming Baghdad government, if “they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time.” Secretary of State Condi Rice "brushed aside suggestions that the United States wants an indefinite troop presence and permanent military bases in Iraq" according to an April 4th, AP article. That is the first clue right there. That way a politician speaks. The key word in that phrase is "wants"...did you catch that already? I knew you would; you're brilliant.

No. Of course the U.S. doesn't "want" indefinite troop presence and permanent military bases in Iraq, but will we be told that we "need" them there? Ahhh...grasshopper, you learn quickly. By President Bush's own admission, the troops will be there for at least 3 more years. You remember the March 21st AP article that wrote, "President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. But defying critics and plunging polls, he declared, "I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out."

The Associated Press released this article regarding military bases in Iraq the same day as Bush announced he was washing his hands of an exit strategy and leaving it to some poor future chump.

Extended presence of U.S. in Iraq looms large

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.”

Wow. That is a lot of base building/securing going on for a military presence that we've been told will be pulling out once the Iraqi troops pass muster and can take care of their ownselves. Which of course we've also been told is going very well. Okay, well, we're going to be there a long time. Our bases will be permanent. Mark my words.

Moving on to more confusion...Condi also said this on April 4th:

"The presence in Iraq is for a very clear purpose, and that's to enable Iraqis to be able to govern themselves and to create security forces that can help them do that," Rice told the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations panel.

Let's back that fact truck up for just a second. Why are we there Condi? I thought we were in Iraq because Sadaam posed a clear and immediate threat to the security of the United States. That was the reason the U.N. weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq and their request for more time denied...THE reason for "shock and awe". I thought we were there to find WMD. Then we were told that we are "fighting them [insurgents/al qaeda] over there so that we don't have to fight them here". Simoultaneously we've been told that we were liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to their country. Look, they have their parliament and they have troops... it is time to go. If our soldiers are ready to fight after 3 months of boot camp, then the Iraqi soldiers should be plenty ready.

Our presence in Iraq is not very clear Ms. Rice. It's not very clear because the reasons change depending on who is on the recieving end of the political advantage that answer will provide. She goes on to say:

"I don't think that anybody believes that we really want to be there longer than we have to," the chief U.S. diplomat added.

And no one is suggesting that Condi, so why are you answering a question that hasn't been asked? Why can't you just answer 'yes' or 'no'? Will the bases be made permanent? No. Will the bases be made permanent? Yes. See how easy that was? This administration either A) doesn't know the answer to that question, or B) Does know but will not tell the truth. Either case is not appealing. If you don't understand political speak, it's no wonder you're confused. Consider this translation my gift to society.

Peace out.

Rice Dismisses Talk of U.S. Bases in Iraq - AP


Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years