powerclown

I found this article remarkable. Why would the US be building such a thing amidst the deafening clamor to bring the troops home? Where is the logic of building the World's Biggest US Embassy in the World with pulling out of Iraq? Why are these buildings being constructed in the midst of a civil war? Why aren't any of the Presidential candidates talking about this? Does this have Congressional backing? Do the insurgents/al-qaeda know about this? What the hell is going on here?

kurty[B]

Because the people currently fighting over there expect there to be a military presence for a long time to come (peaceful or war-ready). Even if things settle down in Iraq I could see their remaining 6-8 fully operational military bases. We still have military bases in Germany after how many years. Do people really think after invading a country we're just going to pull everything out? Look at our base on Kuwait, they are continuously adding more permanent buildings to it all the time. When we "help a country out" we establish a base of operations there with no intensions of moving.

As to why the embassy is going to be so large? Got me?

Oh, and I just noticed, that article is from more than a year ago. Like it says, the people working at the embassy need a place to live within safe grounds. So at least half of that project is housing. The reason why it is so expensive, is because having a contractor from the U.S. or any developed country work on building in a war-zone is at least $150K a year for just his salary, I don't even want to know what the contracting company makes for physically putting a person in that location; don't forget about housing them, feeding them, and paying Indians and Sri Lankans to keep the shower trailers clean, and serve food at the chow-halls (don't worry, they don't make that much money to be in a war-zone). I'm not defending the construction of a large embassy, just saying that's the way it is.

powerclown

OK...I see some of your points, but doesn't it strike you as strange that on the one hand, people worldwide are screaming for the US to get out of Iraq NOW (including American politicians), and on the other hand Americans ignoring this and going forth and planning for what looks to be long-term presence in Iraq? In that case, why the rush to bring home the troops for example?

Regarding your German bases comparison, are you saying that we have good things to look forward to in Iraq, vis a vis what the Marshall Plan did for Germany? I have doubts. Or maybe at the very least, the Americans are committed to making an ally out of Iraq at all costs? The rhetoric here in America, and the reality on the ground in Iraq seem completely at odds...or am I missing the obvious? Yet, nothing *seems* obvious...it all seems "between the lines".

pig

well powerclown, if you saw my post in the other thread on cheney, you know why i think this is. i think that we will have troop reductions, but we will have largely finished with the necessary military installations before we do. the rhetoric is for us to pay attention to and try to weed through; eventually, the calls for the troops to be brought home will happen in a sense, ergo reductions to what the embassy/bases will hold on a continuous basis.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

ubertuber

It would be particularly nonsensical to install a government "voted for by the people" and then not recognize it with normalized diplomatic relations. That part has nothing to do with the push or desire for withdrawal.

In general, embassies aren't really occupations of foreign soil. In specific, this one will have to be able to function as a self-contained safe zone for the forseeable future. It would be quite embarrassing to have to abandon it if conditions in the city were to deteriorate.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

kurty[B]

ubertuber is exactly right. I stepped out of bounds from the original post talking about military bases. That embassy will have to be self-contained. The area is too volatile, and if it were not self-contained we would be evacuating people far too often. Unfortunately, because of that, the embassy will function a lot like a military base. Checkpoints everywhere, only properly badged and identified people allowed entry.

powerclown

Exactly.

I find it amazing that the Americans feel so confident and emboldened as to build such a symbolically political structure amidst what is seemingly total political chaos and civil war. It is as if they are somehow privy to the final diplomatic status between the 2 nations. The massive size of the thing even seems to hammer home the inevitability of it all. Do the Americans even know what the final borders of Iraq are going to look like? Are they even sure Iraq won't become an anti-American and Islamic fundamentalist regime in the model of Iran? Seems like the cart is before the horse here.

Willravel

It's a symbol, but also a symptom. The idea is we're losing badly but we'll need a reason to stay even if the Democratic President is successful in a full troop withdrawal. This is the size of the Vatican and is probably an excellent place to defend from a military standpoint. This is the little piece of America in the Middle East; a symbol representing the fact that we won't be leaving any time soon. It's also another symptom of what roach was describing in the Impeach Dick Cheney thread. This is the feather in the cap that was our dominance over Saddam. It a Costco sized embassy right in one of the best locations, on the Tigris.

Elphaba

This administration never intended to leave Iraq. The palatial embassy, which has been in the works for years, is just one more piece of evidence as to why Bush refuses to alter his course in Iraq.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

powerclown

Well you seem to be implying that you know what the American long-term plan in Iraq is.
Why then is Bush (America) refusing to leave Iraq?

Oil? Surely the Iraqis themselves will be the ones manning the spigots and deciding how the oil revenues are used.
Security? Are they going to remain as a kind of skeleton "ultra-peacekeeping force"?
Political? Will they be the political puppetmasters in Iraq for the next 100 years?
Advisory? Will the Americans be like the Geek Squad, ie., in an onsite support & guidance capacity?
Nation Building? Are the Americans going to rebuild the country from scratch in its own image?

Other?

Willravel

Considering the locations of the military bases we're building, that'd be a big no. We are stationed along the pipeline and near several major oil fields. There's no reason to think we won't insist on 'protecting' them from the civil war we caused.
If by security you mean military control, then yes.
No, the oil will run out in a few decades unless several other large sources are located.

powerclown

Those are fantastical statements... Correct me if Im wrong, but are you saying that the Americans are going to steal the Iraqi's oil and use the revenues for their own purposes? What would thoses purposes be? Wouldn't this perpetuate a failed state in Iraq? Would the world stand by and allow the Americans to pillage Iraq like that? As far as military control, what about Bush's assertion that the Americans will step down as the Iraqis are able to stand up for themselves? Is this code for: We don't believe the Iraqis will ever be able to stand up on their own, and we will rule them all from within their own country?

Willravel

Steal...no, but we'll strong arm them into giving us really, really stupidly low prices. We'll insist it's a price for helping them defend their oil.
I don't know if anyone has told you this, but the President and Vice President are in the oil and war businesses.
I think it's clear that they want a failed state in Iraq.
Why would they stand by and allow us to illegally invade a sovereign nation without provocation? It's not about 'allow'. They clearly have no power over us.
Well...permanent military bases, a GIGANTIC embassy, what looks like no clear troop withdrawal (in fact, we're sending MORE troops)...it's a pretty clear picture.

powerclown

I simply can't believe the majority of your assertions here. I can't believe that the Americans are going to get such favorable rates on oil as these things are strictly monitored. Even if they weren't monitored, what long-term advantage would America have in vastly lower oil prices? I understand that Bush has had an aggressive policy in Iraq, but what about when he leaves office? Will the new folks be like Bush too? Is this a Bush thing or an America thing? And why would America want a failed state in Iraq? None of it makes any sense to me...perhaps you can explain your opinion of what the long term (50-100 years) ambitions of America are?

Willravel

Monitored by people who can do anything about it?
Seriously? Oil, right now the most valuable thing on the planet, and we're getting it at 99 cent store prices and you're asking what the benefit would be? Oil companies will make trillions.
He'll either retire or go back to the oil industry. Either way, he's going to have money.
This is a Neocon thing. It's a PNAC thing. It's an oil industry thing.

My ambitions are in stark contrast to the Bush administration as to the next 50-100 years. I can explain mine, but it's not relevant to this thread or the discussion.

powerclown

American oil companies make trillions from secret oil deals with Iraq.

Ok.

Is that it?

End of story?


So America is going to suck Iraq dry, and leave it to rot.
Then go on to the next oil-rich country, suck it dry, and leave it to rot.
Then do the same to all the rest of the poor saps in the world, and pretty soon the world is full of states that America has sucked dry.
It has no one else to suck dry.
Having no one else to exploit, America eventually withers and dies.

Isn't that somewhat counter-productive?

Willravel

Frankly, pursuing oil at all this late in the game is stupid, BUT there is still money to be made. A lot of money. Even if Hubbard's Peak was reached 20 years ago, there could still be 200-300 billion left to make. Some people, obviously, are willing to sell their soul for money.

The_Jazz

To all those feeling negatively about this project, I think you've missed an important feature of it. The embassy staff is going to be larger. I'm not talking about the security folks, but the on-the-ground folks that do the actual embassy work.

One of the largest failings of this whole mess has been the lack of support from the non-military branches of the administration. Where has the Department of Agriculture been? Last I heard, they'd sent a total of 10 people in 4 years. How's that going to help anything? What about HUD? Or Transportation? I don't think anyone here will argue that putting people to work wouldn't reduce the level of violence.

There are lots of career experts working within the administration that could be giving valuable advice on rebuilding the country, but they're still here. My hope is that the new embassy will be have a lot more people helping to rebuild the country. Maybe that's pie-in-the-sky, but it seems logical.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

loquitur

It's an obvious intelligence resource and clearing house. How can anyone be surprised? Just planning for the future, for good or ill..........

kurty[B]

Aside from the oil. I think Bush thought he was playing a game of Risk 5 years ago. He might have thought that having bases in Afghanistan and Iraq would leave a strong foothold for a possible confrontation with Iran, and also having a presence to try and mediate any Pakistan/India nuclear disputes (yes those countries still have problems with each other). I think Bush honestly thought if we got rid of Saddam the Iraqis would celebrate and welcome us to their country, and we could move on. I don't think he realized that they would retaliate.

Every Colonel I talked to a year ago while in Iraq was not thinking about "if we invade Iran", but "when we invade Iran what am I going to do to keep my forces alive". The next administration has to deal with this mess, and it's not going to be as easy as "pull out all our troops now!". I hate to say it, but by putting our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has directed most of terrorist attention there. Pulling out all our forces would redirect attacks to our soil. So, we can have 3-4 or more people die each day over there, or have a few hundred to thousand die on our soil, and we go back to the "I can't believe this, we have to retaliate some how!" mentality and we make some bold move, and end up in the exact situation we are in now (democrat or no in office). Remember, after 9/11 even most Democrats bent over backwards to permit going to war.

I feel sorry for our next president. No matter what they do they are going to get a bad rap because of Bush. If they pull out completely the people of this country will hate them, if they leave troops there, the people will hate them. I honestly don't know what to do or have a resolution to the situation. Aside from changing my life to try and use as little oil based energy products as I can, and starting with pushing my city and county officials to get them to change the energy consumption habits of both.

loquitur

The best thing we can do for ourselves and for humanity at large is to come up wiht a viable non-petroleum energy source. The need for energy has been distorting mankind's priorities for a century.

pig

loquitur,

we're on it dog

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Elphaba

Are you unaware of the oil legislation being forced upon the Iraqi legislature? It is one of their specific benchmarks set by Bush, and I believe the "surge" has been merely to buy additional time to get that legislation passed.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

host

I could not disagree with you more....there is no "war on terror", a long, long, war where we fight them "over there", so we don't have to "fight them here". If there was, the following incident that I wrote about yesterday,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96966&page=4 and containted this:

.....would not be happening. The contradictions between what the Bush admin. says, and what it does, should be a wake up call for all Americans.

This is from the POTUS's own hand picked commission. The idea of deploying an army of 175,000, at a direct cost of more than $2 billion per week, to control "this" so that we "don't have to fight them here" (in the US) is not believable or practical....
From page 10 of the Baker ISG report:
When the US took over in Afghanistan and installed their "puppet" Kharzai, there was no "drug problem" In Afghanistan:
The expectations that the imposed border "agreement" ....the "Dunbar Line" would expire, after 100 years, as it was suppose to, but didn't, IMO has as much to do with what is described as "Taleban insurgency" as it does about associating the fighting with "al-Qaeda".

The problem with a troop "pull out" now, is not about postponing or shifting the "GWOT", at best a propagandized myth. The problem is what to do about a region containing resources vital to the US, moreso because, instead of spending $1 trillion to fund a "Manhattan Project" style, research project to develop alternative energy sources, the US threw the money away destabilizing that key energy source region, and the result is that the most threatening and largest nation in that region that was checked militarily by Iraq, is now free to interrupt energy supplies/manipulate petroleum pricing, as it chooses...

powerclown

Nevermind...oil psa's.

powerclown

Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay
by Peter Spiegel

WASHINGTON — Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.

Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money.

Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding that the Pentagon explain its plans for the bases, and they unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for base agreements with the Iraqi government.

"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.

Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The debate in Congress comes as concerns grow over how long the U.S. intends to keep forces in Iraq, a worry amplified when President Bush earlier this week said that a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq would not occur during his term.

Long-term U.S. bases in Iraq would also be problematic in the Middle East, where they could lend credence to charges that the U.S. motive for the invasion was to seize land and oil. And they could also feed debate about the appropriate U.S. relationship with Iraq after Baghdad's new government fully assumes control.

State Department and Pentagon officials have insisted that the bases being constructed in Iraq will eventually be handed over to the Iraqi government.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said on Iraqi television last week that the U.S. had "no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq."

And Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We're building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis."

But the seemingly definitive administration statements mask a semantic distinction: Although officials say they are not building permanent U.S. bases, they decline to say whether they will seek a deal with the new Iraqi government to allow long-term troop deployments.

Asked at a congressional hearing last week whether he could "make an unequivocal commitment" that the U.S. officials would not seek to establish permanent bases in Iraq, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander in charge of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, replied, "The policy on long-term presence in Iraq hasn't been formulated." Venable, the Pentagon spokesman, said it was "premature and speculative" to discuss long-term base agreements before the permanent Iraqi government had been put in place.

All told, the United States has set up 110 forward operating bases in Iraq, and the Pentagon says about 34 of them already have been turned over to the Iraqi government, part of an ongoing effort to gradually strengthen Iraqi security forces.

Bush is under political pressure to reduce the number of U.S. troops before midterm congressional elections, and the Pentagon is expected to decide soon whether the next major deployment will reflect a significant reduction in forces.

But despite the potential force reductions and the base handovers, the spending has continued.

Dov Zakheim, who oversaw the Pentagon's emergency spending requests as the department's budget chief until 2004, said critics might be reading too much into the costly emergency spending, needed to protect U.S. forces from insurgent attacks and provide better conditions for deployed troops.

The spending "doesn't necessarily connote permanence," Zakheim said. "God knows it's a tough enough environment anyway."

The bulk of the Pentagon's emergency spending for military construction over the last three years in Iraq has focused on three or four large-scale air and logistics bases that dot the center of the country.

The administration is seeking $348 million for base construction as part of its 2006 emergency war funding bill. The Senate has not yet acted on the request.

By far the most funding has gone to a mammoth facility north of Baghdad in Balad, which includes an air base and a logistics center. The U.S. Central Command said it intended to use the base as the military's primary hub in the region as it gradually hands off Baghdad airport to civilian authorities.

Through the end last year, the administration spent about $230 million in emergency funds on the Balad base, and its new request includes $17.8 million for new roads that can accommodate hulking military vehicles and a 12.4-mile-long, 13-foot-high security fence.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted in a report last year that many of the funds already spent, including for the facilities at Balad, suggested a longer-term U.S. presence.

Projects at the base include an $18-million aircraft parking ramp and a $15-million airfield lighting system that has allowed commanders to make Balad a strategic air center for the region; a $2.9-million Special Operations compound, isolated from the rest of the base and complete with landing pads for helicopters and airplanes, where classified payloads can be delivered; and a $7-million mail distribution building.

Other bases also are being developed in ways that could lend them to permanent use.

This year's request also includes $110 million for Tallil air base outside the southeastern city of Nasiriya, a sprawling facility in the shadow of the ruins of the biblical city of Ur. Only $11 million has been spent so far, but the administration's new request appears to envision Tallil as another major transportation hub, with new roads, a new dining hall for 6,000 troops — about two Army brigades — and a new center to organize and support large supply convoys.

The administration also has spent $50 million for Camp Taji, an Army base north of Baghdad, and $46.3 million on Al Asad air base in the western desert.

These large bases are being built at the same time that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on separate bases for the growing Iraqi military. According to the U.S. Central Command and data obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, for example, about $165 million has been spent to build an Iraqi base near the southern town of Numaniya and more than $150 million for a northern base at the old Iraqi army's Al Kasik facility.

The big numbers have begun to cause consternation in congressional appropriations committees, which are demanding more accountability from Pentagon officials on military construction in the region.

The House Appropriations Committee approved the president's newest funding bill this month with a strongly worded warning. In a report accompanying the legislation, the committee noted that it had already approved about $1.3 billion in emergency spending for war-related construction, but that the recently declared "long war" on terrorism should allow more oversight of plans for bases in the region.

It "has become clear in recent years that these expeditionary operations can result in substantial military construction expenditures of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases," the committee reported.

Rep. James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees military construction, said his panel was concerned that money the Pentagon was ostensibly seeking for short-term emergency needs actually was going to projects that were not urgent but long-term in nature.

Walsh pointed to a $167-million request to build a series of roads in Iraq that bypass major cities, a proposal the administration said was needed to decrease the convoys' exposure to roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Walsh's subcommittee cut the budget for the project to $60 million. He said the project sounded "more like road construction" than it did a strategy to protect troops from IEDs.

The Appropriations Committee also inserted a ban on spending any of the new money on facilities in Iraq until the U.S. Central Command submitted a master plan for bases in the region. Abizaid, in congressional testimony last week, said such a plan was in the process of getting final Pentagon approval for release to the committee. But he noted: "The master plan is fairly clear on everything except for Iraq and Afghanistan, which I don't have policy guidance for long term."

Without such detail, it might prove impossible for congressional appropriators to get a firm idea of how the administration views the future of the U.S. presence on big bases in Iraq.

In any event, said Zakheim, the former Pentagon budget officer, projects that expand bases' ability to handle American cargo and warplanes will eventually be of use to the Iraqi government.

"Just because the Iraqis don't have an air force now doesn't mean they won't have it several years down the road," he said.

But critics said it was all the more reason for the administration to stop being vague about the future.

"The Iraqis believe we came for their oil and we're going to put bases on top of their oil," said Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine), a critic of the administration's approach. "As long as the vast majority of Iraqis believe we want to be there indefinitely, those who are opposed to us are going to fight harder and those who are with us are going to be less enthusiastic."

Times staff writer Doug Smith contributed to this report.

On the rise

Here are four of the bases in Iraq for which the Bush administration has planned upgrades. Money spent through 2005 was granted through emergency spending bills since 2003:

1. Al Asad air base

By some accounts the second largest military air center in Iraq and the main supply base for troops in Al Anbar Province, which includes the insurgent strongholds of Fallouja and Ramadi. It houses about 17,000 troops, including a large contingent of Marines.

Spending: Unknown*

Bush 2006 request: $46.3 million

2. Balad air base

The U.S. military's main air transportation and supply hub in Iraq, with two giant runways. Also known as Camp Anaconda, it is the largest support base in the country, with about 22,500 troops and several thousand contractors.

Spending: $228.7 million*

Bush 2006 request: $17.8 million.

3. Camp Taji

One of the largest facilities for U.S. ground forces in Iraq, the base also serves as home to about 15,000 Iraqi security forces. It has the largest military shopping center (PX) in the country.

Spending: $49.6 million*

Bush 2006 request: None

4. Tallil air base

An increasingly important air and transportation hub, with a growing population of coalition troops and contractors. It has become a key stopping point for supply convoys moving north from Kuwait and is close to one of the Iraqi army's main training facilities.

Spending: $10.8 million*

Bush 2006 request: $110.3 million

--

Sooner or later, American Democratic leadership is going to have to admit the obvious to the American people....that America is in Iraq, in a big way, for the long term. I happen to think it an insult to people's intelligence to call for wholesale troop withdrawal, especially from those government officials running for President and basing their candidacy on public appeals for said withdrawal.