Permanent U.S. Military Bases In Iraq

Last November, I predicted that the Bush Regime would begin to significantly draw down troops in Iraq by Spring of 2006 in order to prevent the Iraq Debacle from being the big political issue in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. But this excellent piece by Tom Engelhardt (via Kevin Drum and Daily Kos) suggests that any withdrawal from Iraq will be illusory at best:

Since guerrilla attacks have actually been on the rise and the delivery of the basic amenities of modern civilization (electrical power, potable water, gas for cars, functional sewage systems, working traffic lights, and so on) on the decline, since the very establishment of a government inside the heavily fortified Green Zone has proved immensely difficult, and since U.S. reconstruction funds (those that haven't already disappeared down one clogged drain or another) are drying up, such partial withdrawals may prove more complicated to pull off than imagined.

It's clear, nonetheless, that "withdrawal" is on the propaganda agenda of an administration heading into mid-term elections with an increasingly skittish Republican Party in tow and congressional candidates worried about defending the President's mission-unaccomplished war of choice. Under the circumstances, we can expect more hints of, followed by promises of, followed by announcements of "major" withdrawals, possibly including news in the fall election season of even more "massive" withdrawals slated for the end of 2006 or early 2007, all hedged with conditional clauses and "only ifs" -- withdrawal promises that, once the election is over, this administration would undoubtedly feel under no particular obligation to fulfill.

The problem, of course, is that the U.S. military has no intention of ever withdrawing from Iraq. Engelhardt's article goes on to describe American "super-bases" that are being constructed there right now.

After describing some of the amenities these bases have to offer -- one of them has "a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, 'an ersatz Starbucks,' a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's O'Hare airport, and "a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags" -- Engelhardt goes on to note that withdrawal is clearly not BushCo's plan when it comes to Iraq:

There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency."

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases," and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report. . . .

So expect in the coming months a lot of talk from the Bush Administration about how we are withdrawing from Iraq, and maybe even enough actual troop withdrawals to present the appearance that we are beginning a pull-out. But don't expect to hear anything from the American mainstream press about these Iraqi super-bases. And whatever you do, read Engelhardt's piece in its entirety. It's a real eye-opener.