US is building several 'permanent' military bases in Iraq.
If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases? Primary Source: GlobalSecurity.org
Initially, the US established more than a hundred bases of different sizes in Iraq. By the end of 2003, the Pentagon had developed as many as fourteen bases beyond the level of temporary encampment. According to the Iraq Study Group, at the end of 2006 there were still 55 US bases in the country and Pentagon requests for funding in the last year have included money for building giant mess halls – capable of feeding 5000 people – new airfields, and other facilities that suggest the U.S. isn’t planning to leave Iraq anytime soon. Below are some of the key facilities and mega-bases.
1) Green Zone (Baghdad)
The Green Zone in Baghdad includes the main palaces of former President Saddam Hussein. The area at one time housed the Coalition Provisional Authority; and now houses the offices of major U.S. consulting companies and the U.S. embassy—by far the largest embassy in world history that approaches the size of the Vatican, or six times the size of the UN compound in New York.
2) Camp Falcon-Al-Sarq (Baghdad)In late September 2003, the 439th Engineering Battalion delivered over 100,000 tons of gravel and is assisting with building roads, walls, guard towers, and buildings for Camp Falcon. Camp Falcon is planned to house 5,000 soldiers.
3) Camp Victory- Al Nasr (Baghdad Airfield)Camp Victory is a U.S. Army base situated on airport grounds about 5 kilometers from Baghdad International Airport. The base can house up to 14,000 troops. Al Faw Palace on Camp Victory is surrounded by a man-made lake and serves as an unofficial conference center for the Army.
WEST OF BAGHDAD
4) Camp Anaconda/Balad AirbaseBalad airbase is the second busiest airport in the world, trailing only London’s Heathrow Airport. Camp Anaconda is the largest U.S. logistical base in Iraq. The camp is spread over 15 square miles and is being constructed to accommodate 20,000 soldiers.
There is a 24 hour gym, lighted outdoor basketball courts, Olympic-sized swimming pool, as well as a chandeliered cinema for the troops. “The closest some troops here come to experiencing the Iraq seen on the evening news is the miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage,” wrote Tom Ricks from the Washington Post.
5) Camp Taji (Taji)
Camp Taji, former Iraqi Republican Guard “military city,“ is now a huge U.S. base equipped with a Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut on the premises.
6) Taqaddum AirbaseAl Taqaddum Airbase is located in central Iraq approximately 74 kilometers west of Baghdad. The airfield is served by 2 runways—13,000 and 12,000 feet long.
7) Camp Fallujuh The exact whereabouts and name of this base is unknown. Analysts believe that the U.S. is building an “enduring base” in Fallujah, a large town forty miles west of Baghdad. Fallujah has proved to be the most violence prone area in Iraq. Between early April 2004, when Marines halted their first offensive against the city, and November 2004, when the city was “re-taken” from insurgents, Fallujuh was a no-go area with numerous murders and bombings.
TIKRIT AREA
8) Camp Speicher (Tikrit)Camp Speicher is located near Tikrit in northern Iraq, approximately 170 kilometers north of Baghdad. It houses several thousand troops, and a Burger King.
MOSUL AREA
9) al-Qayyara (about 50 miles southeast of Mosul)
10) Camp Marez (Mosul Airfield)
KIRKUK AREA
11) Camp Renegade (Kirkuk)Strategically located near the Kirkuk oil fields and the Kirkuk refinery and petrochemical plant, Camp Renegade has a dormitory that houses up to 1,664 airmen in 13 buildings with six to eight people to a room.
12) Unknown name (between Irbil and Kirkuk)
NASIRIYAH
13) al-Talil Air Base (14 miles SE of Nasiriyah)
In 2006, $22 million was authorized by Congress to build a second dining facility was being built to seat 6,000, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers, and a moat.
IRAN BORDER
14) Patrol Base Shocker- (Badraj)Four miles from the Iranian border near the Iraqi town of Badrah. Home to 240 soldiers and contractors including 55 US troops, and a contingent of soldiers from the Republic of Georgia, the base became operational in mid-November 2007. Also has military and civilian analysts monitoring the extent of Iranian influence in Iraq.
------------------------------------------------
SOURCESA. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton et al. “The Iraq Study Group Report” Vintage Books, New York (December 2006).
Global Policy Forum, ed. War and Occupation in Iraq. (June 2007).
GlobalSecurity.org, Iraq Facilities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm. Used with permission.
Hanley, Charles. “Huge bases raise question: Is U.S. in Iraq to stay?” Arizona Daily Star (March 21, 2007)
Jamail, Dahr. “Iraq: Permanent US Colony.” Truthout (March 14, 2006)
Ricks, Tom. “Biggest Base in Iraq has Small-Town Feel” Washington Post (February 4, 2008)
Sly, Liz. “In Iraq, U.S. base eyes Iran border” Chicago Tribune (December 10, 2007).
If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases? Primary Source: GlobalSecurity.orgInitially, the US established more than a hundred bases of different sizes in Iraq. By the end of 2003, the Pentagon had developed as many as fourteen bases beyond the level of temporary encampment. According to the Iraq Study Group, at the end of 2006 there were still 55 US bases in the country and Pentagon requests for funding in the last year have included money for building giant mess halls – capable of feeding 5000 people – new airfields, and other facilities that suggest the U.S. isn’t planning to leave Iraq anytime soon. Below are some of the key facilities and mega-bases.
1) Green Zone (Baghdad)
The Green Zone in Baghdad includes the main palaces of former President Saddam Hussein. The area at one time housed the Coalition Provisional Authority; and now houses the offices of major U.S. consulting companies and the U.S. embassy—by far the largest embassy in world history that approaches the size of the Vatican, or six times the size of the UN compound in New York.
2) Camp Falcon-Al-Sarq (Baghdad)In late September 2003, the 439th Engineering Battalion delivered over 100,000 tons of gravel and is assisting with building roads, walls, guard towers, and buildings for Camp Falcon. Camp Falcon is planned to house 5,000 soldiers.
3) Camp Victory- Al Nasr (Baghdad Airfield)Camp Victory is a U.S. Army base situated on airport grounds about 5 kilometers from Baghdad International Airport. The base can house up to 14,000 troops. Al Faw Palace on Camp Victory is surrounded by a man-made lake and serves as an unofficial conference center for the Army.
WEST OF BAGHDAD
4) Camp Anaconda/Balad AirbaseBalad airbase is the second busiest airport in the world, trailing only London’s Heathrow Airport. Camp Anaconda is the largest U.S. logistical base in Iraq. The camp is spread over 15 square miles and is being constructed to accommodate 20,000 soldiers.
There is a 24 hour gym, lighted outdoor basketball courts, Olympic-sized swimming pool, as well as a chandeliered cinema for the troops. “The closest some troops here come to experiencing the Iraq seen on the evening news is the miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage,” wrote Tom Ricks from the Washington Post.
5) Camp Taji (Taji)
Camp Taji, former Iraqi Republican Guard “military city,“ is now a huge U.S. base equipped with a Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut on the premises.
6) Taqaddum AirbaseAl Taqaddum Airbase is located in central Iraq approximately 74 kilometers west of Baghdad. The airfield is served by 2 runways—13,000 and 12,000 feet long.
7) Camp Fallujuh The exact whereabouts and name of this base is unknown. Analysts believe that the U.S. is building an “enduring base” in Fallujah, a large town forty miles west of Baghdad. Fallujah has proved to be the most violence prone area in Iraq. Between early April 2004, when Marines halted their first offensive against the city, and November 2004, when the city was “re-taken” from insurgents, Fallujuh was a no-go area with numerous murders and bombings.
TIKRIT AREA
8) Camp Speicher (Tikrit)Camp Speicher is located near Tikrit in northern Iraq, approximately 170 kilometers north of Baghdad. It houses several thousand troops, and a Burger King.
MOSUL AREA
9) al-Qayyara (about 50 miles southeast of Mosul)
10) Camp Marez (Mosul Airfield)
KIRKUK AREA
11) Camp Renegade (Kirkuk)Strategically located near the Kirkuk oil fields and the Kirkuk refinery and petrochemical plant, Camp Renegade has a dormitory that houses up to 1,664 airmen in 13 buildings with six to eight people to a room.
12) Unknown name (between Irbil and Kirkuk)
NASIRIYAH
13) al-Talil Air Base (14 miles SE of Nasiriyah)
In 2006, $22 million was authorized by Congress to build a second dining facility was being built to seat 6,000, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers, and a moat.
IRAN BORDER
14) Patrol Base Shocker- (Badraj)Four miles from the Iranian border near the Iraqi town of Badrah. Home to 240 soldiers and contractors including 55 US troops, and a contingent of soldiers from the Republic of Georgia, the base became operational in mid-November 2007. Also has military and civilian analysts monitoring the extent of Iranian influence in Iraq.
------------------------------------------------
SOURCESA. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton et al. “The Iraq Study Group Report” Vintage Books, New York (December 2006).
Global Policy Forum, ed. War and Occupation in Iraq. (June 2007).
GlobalSecurity.org, Iraq Facilities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm. Used with permission.
Hanley, Charles. “Huge bases raise question: Is U.S. in Iraq to stay?” Arizona Daily Star (March 21, 2007)
Jamail, Dahr. “Iraq: Permanent US Colony.” Truthout (March 14, 2006)
Ricks, Tom. “Biggest Base in Iraq has Small-Town Feel” Washington Post (February 4, 2008)
Sly, Liz. “In Iraq, U.S. base eyes Iran border” Chicago Tribune (December 10, 2007).
US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq
Michael Howard in Baghdad The Guardian, Monday May 23 2005
Michael Howard in Baghdad The Guardian, Monday May 23 2005
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal. The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.
Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."
Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.
He said the pace of the "troop consolidation" would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures.
A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.
US officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire.
A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."
· Three Romanian journalists kidnapped in Iraq were freed yesterday after two months in captivity.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.
Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."
Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.
He said the pace of the "troop consolidation" would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures.
A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.
US officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire.
A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."
· Three Romanian journalists kidnapped in Iraq were freed yesterday after two months in captivity.
US Military Bases in Iraq: Permanent?
zPoint: Three key goals of permanent Iraqi bases are (1) to get US bases out of Saudi Arabia, (2) to protect the Mideast oil supply, and (3) to assure Iraq is under a US-friendly government. The first goal has been met. Bases US May Shift Bases in the Persian Gulf ''We'll be in the region for the foreseeable future,'' said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, deputy air commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region. ''Our intention would be to stay as long as the host nations will have us.'' No intention at the present of permanent bases2/17/2005, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense globalsecurity"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq."
Permanent bases? We have no idea.12/23/2005, Donald Rumsfeld, DODQuestion: As soon as our mission is completed are there going to be permanent bases out here that Marines are going have obligated service to?SECRETARY RUMSFELD: That's an interesting question that comes up from time to time. The answer is we have no idea.
No goal of establishing permanent bases3/11/2006, Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to IraqThe U.S. has "no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq." — on Iraqi television
But we are building permanent bases~3/11/2006, Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, Pentagon spokesman"We're building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis."
With no policy at the present3/14/2006, General AbizaidRepubican Congresman Price asked: “Can you make an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not plan to establish permanent bases in Iraq?” Abizaid’s response: “No sir, I can’t...the policy on long-term presence in Iraq hasn’t been formulated.” —testimony before a House Appropriations Subcommittee
What does it all add up to? We're building 14 "enduring" bases, and hoping to arrange for an Iraqi goverment that will ask us to stay. Given the amount of money we are pumping into the Iraqi goverment, etc., they probably will. zFact:$1 Billion for military construction For 2005 and 2006, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for US military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime. zFact:Asad Base is 19 square miles, has two bus routes, a car dealership, a Burger King, a Pizza Hut, traffic rules and stop signs. 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. 3/26/06 Boston Globe zFact:The U.S. has 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq"As it is now called, Camp Maerz is one of fourteen “enduring bases” in Iraq, and includes “satellite television and Internet cafes. The facility’s dining hall is the size of an airport hangar." from The Army Lawyer (PDF), August 2005. zFact:The U.S. military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region -- an expansion plan that U.S. commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area. Washington Post zFact:And then there is the new embassy A new U.S. embassy will cost between $600 million and $1 billion. It is to arise in Baghdad's Green Zone on a plot of land along the Tigris River that is reportedly two-thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC. The plans for this "embassy" are almost mythic in nature. A high-tech complex, it is to have "15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles" for protection as well as bunkers to guard against air attacks. source That was THEN4/13/04 "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. ..."In terms of how long we'll be there: as long as necessary, and not one day more." President Bush White House.gov
1/28/06 "We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis…[I]t is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq."Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq. Seattle PI WHY?"The stationing of American forces abroad lends stability to countries and their regions, allowing trade to prosper, economies to flourish, and democracy to take root. American forces overseas have opportunities to train in areas where they would more likely see combat, with allies alongside whom they would likely fight." David Yost, “The Future of U.S. Overseas Presence,” Joint Forces Quarterly (Summer 1995) Balancing bases and locations This is NOW3/15/06 "The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil."John Abizaid, Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq. Reuters QUESTION: Will there come a day ... when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. whitehouse.gov Times Argus An embedded reporter writes about "enduring bases" in Iraq.
Permanent bases? We have no idea.12/23/2005, Donald Rumsfeld, DODQuestion: As soon as our mission is completed are there going to be permanent bases out here that Marines are going have obligated service to?SECRETARY RUMSFELD: That's an interesting question that comes up from time to time. The answer is we have no idea.
No goal of establishing permanent bases3/11/2006, Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to IraqThe U.S. has "no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq." — on Iraqi television
But we are building permanent bases~3/11/2006, Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, Pentagon spokesman"We're building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis."
With no policy at the present3/14/2006, General AbizaidRepubican Congresman Price asked: “Can you make an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not plan to establish permanent bases in Iraq?” Abizaid’s response: “No sir, I can’t...the policy on long-term presence in Iraq hasn’t been formulated.” —testimony before a House Appropriations Subcommittee
What does it all add up to? We're building 14 "enduring" bases, and hoping to arrange for an Iraqi goverment that will ask us to stay. Given the amount of money we are pumping into the Iraqi goverment, etc., they probably will. zFact:$1 Billion for military construction For 2005 and 2006, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for US military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime. zFact:Asad Base is 19 square miles, has two bus routes, a car dealership, a Burger King, a Pizza Hut, traffic rules and stop signs. 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. 3/26/06 Boston Globe zFact:The U.S. has 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq"As it is now called, Camp Maerz is one of fourteen “enduring bases” in Iraq, and includes “satellite television and Internet cafes. The facility’s dining hall is the size of an airport hangar." from The Army Lawyer (PDF), August 2005. zFact:The U.S. military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region -- an expansion plan that U.S. commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area. Washington Post zFact:And then there is the new embassy A new U.S. embassy will cost between $600 million and $1 billion. It is to arise in Baghdad's Green Zone on a plot of land along the Tigris River that is reportedly two-thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC. The plans for this "embassy" are almost mythic in nature. A high-tech complex, it is to have "15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles" for protection as well as bunkers to guard against air attacks. source That was THEN4/13/04 "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. ..."In terms of how long we'll be there: as long as necessary, and not one day more." President Bush White House.gov
1/28/06 "We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis…[I]t is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq."Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq. Seattle PI WHY?"The stationing of American forces abroad lends stability to countries and their regions, allowing trade to prosper, economies to flourish, and democracy to take root. American forces overseas have opportunities to train in areas where they would more likely see combat, with allies alongside whom they would likely fight." David Yost, “The Future of U.S. Overseas Presence,” Joint Forces Quarterly (Summer 1995) Balancing bases and locations This is NOW3/15/06 "The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil."John Abizaid, Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq. Reuters QUESTION: Will there come a day ... when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. whitehouse.gov Times Argus An embedded reporter writes about "enduring bases" in Iraq.
Digging In News:
If the U.S. government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq for any longer than necessary, why is it spending billions of dollars to build "enduring" bases?
By Joshua Hammer
March/April 2005 Issue
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last December that he expected U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for another four years, he was merely confirming what any visitor to the country could have surmised. The omnipresence of the giant defense contractor KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root), the shipments of concrete and other construction materials, and the transformation of decrepit Iraqi military bases into fortified American enclaves—complete with Pizza Huts and DVD stores—are just the most obvious signs that the United States has been digging in for the long haul. It's a far cry from administration assurances after the invasion that the troops could start withdrawing from Iraq as early as the fall of 2003. And it is hardly consistent with a prediction by Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, that the troops would be out of Iraq within months, or with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi's guess that the U.S. occupation would last two years. Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX—and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support. Although Camp Victory North remains a work in progress today, when complete, the complex will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo—currently one of the largest overseas posts built since the Vietnam War.
Such a heavy footprint seems counterproductive, given the growing antipathy felt by most Iraqis toward the U.S. military occupation. Yet Camp Victory North appears to be a harbinger of America's future in Iraq. Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country—long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely. John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.
At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. Although the Pentagon considers most of the construction to be "temporary"—designed to last up to three years—similar facilities have remained in place for much longer at other "enduring" American bases, including Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, which opened in 1999, and Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in place since the mid-1990s.
How long is "enduring"? The administration insists that troops will remain in Iraq as long as it takes to install a functioning, democratic government, quell the insurgency, and build an efficient Iraqi fighting force. Given the elusiveness of those goals, many military experts believe that Rumsfeld's hope that the troops might be out by 2008 is wildly optimistic. Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000, recently predicted that American involvement in Iraq would last at least 10 more years. Retired Army Lt. General Jay Garner, the former interim administrator of reconstruction efforts in Iraq, told reporters in February 2004 that a U.S. military presence in Iraq should last "the next few decades." Even that, some analysts warn, could be an underestimate. "Half a century ago if anyone tried to convince you that we’d still have troops in Korea and Japan, you’d think they were crazy," says Pike, the military analyst. Suspicions also run deep both inside Pentagon circles and among analysts that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into the facilities in pursuit of a different agenda entirely: to turn Iraq into a permanent base of operations in the Middle East.
If true, this scheme is fraught with danger. The presence of U.S. troops is a powerful recruitment tool for the Iraqi insurgency—as well as a source of bitter anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. Politically, the occupation is becoming increasingly untenable: Practically every significant Iraqi political figure—from Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to Iraqi president Ghazi al-Yawar, an influential Sunni Muslim—opposes the occupation and wants the troops out, and any leader who hopes to maintain credibility will have to make that a priority. "The presence of bases there is going to be a source of instability and anger for the Iraqi people, whether they are currently for the insurgency or not," says Jessica Matthews, the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. "It will convince people across the Arab world that we went there to install an American regime in the Middle East."
The other great danger of "enduring" bases, say critics, is that they tend to operate according to a well-tested axiom: The deeper you dig in, the harder it is to dig out. That's hardly reassuring to the 11,400 U.S. soldiers who’ve had their enlistments extended through the stop-loss clause in their contracts, and to others who’ve been forced to serve multiple tours in the combat zone.
One indication of an open-ended U.S. occupation is the amount of money that has already been spent on bases in Iraq. KBR’s first big building contract there, in June 2003, was a $200 million project to build and maintain "temporary housing units" for U.S. troops. Since then, according to military documents, it has received another $8.5 billion for work associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom. By far the largest sum—at least $4.5 billion—has gone to construction and maintenance of U.S. bases. By comparison, from 1999 to this spring, the U.S. government paid $1.9 billion to KBR for similar work in the Balkans.
Does the Department of Defense have a bigger agenda in Iraq? Brig. General Robert Pollman, chief engineer of base construction in Iraq, caused a stir—and forced his superiors to engage in damage control—when he told the Chicago Tribune last spring that the bases could be a "swap" for bases in Saudi Arabia. The United States has been closing bases and drawing down its forces in the kingdom in response to the growing unpopularity of the American presence there and repeated terror attacks. In mid-2003, roughly 4,500 U.S. troops reportedly redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving only about 500 in the kingdom.
Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who served in the office of the Secretary of Defense until spring 2003, and has since become an outspoken critic of the war, says that the neoconservative architects of the Iraq invasion definitely foresaw a permanent, large-scale presence. Kwiatkowski says that Pentagon planners view the bases as vital both for protecting Israel and as launchpads for operations in Syria and Iran. The Pentagon, she says, went into the war assuming that once Saddam was toppled a so-called Status of Forces Agreement, like those the U.S. government signed with Japan and South Korea, could be quickly reached with Iraq. The growth of the insurgency and the vocal opposition to a prolonged U.S. occupation among Iraqi leaders haven't changed the plan, Kwiatkowski insists: "We’re pouring concrete. We’re building little fiefdoms with security, moats, and walls…. Eighty percent of Iraqis will grouse, but they have no political power," she says. "We'll stay whether they want us to or not."
Other American officials heartily dispute that assertion. One U.S. official who served alongside L. Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority insists that base construction has been an ad hoc effort, reflecting the changing facts on the ground, not long-term strategy. "At no time did I ever overhear any meaningful discussion about 'permanent bases,'" he says. "I remember asking Bremer about it from time to time, and he would say, 'That's ludicrous.' Maybe there are some military guys brainstorming. But it just isn't on the agenda." The official concedes that permanent basing in Iraq "makes sense" from a strictly strategic perspective, given the steady reduction of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and the potential volatility of U.S. relations with other Gulf allies, like Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain, which currently have, all together, an estimated 30,000 U.S. troops stationed within their borders. But he agrees the consequences of such a move would be disastrous: Permanent bases "would be under siege, a temptation for terrorists, a symbol of U.S. occupation. It would totally undermine our political strategy in Iraq." Adds Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The next Iraqi leadership has to show they are truly sovereign and independent. And that’s hard to do if they lease significant parts of Iraq to the United States. We've already seen the ability of these insurgents to target our facilities and attack them. I'd be very reluctant to say this is a good place to base our troops."
That's not to say that the Pentagon isn't keen to maintain at least some American presence on the ground. According to one intelligence source in Baghdad, maintaining a quick reaction force in Iraq would be essential to prevent, for example, a coup against a friendly Iraqi government. And the Pentagon sees Iraq as possibly playing a role in its global realignment of U.S. forces—a shift away from the static, Cold War basing arrangements in Europe to smaller, more flexible deployments in volatile regions like the Middle East. One model they point to is Camp Lemonier, which was built in the Horn of Africa country Djibouti in 2002 and houses about 1,300 troops as well as facilities for fighter planes.
A high-ranking military officer in the Middle East says that the Pentagon envisions a small number of bases in Iraq that "in no way approximates what we have there now." He insists that "we are not planning to occupy the country. We’re talking about a small, unobtrusive presence—it could simply be facilities that give you the capability to come in and out." That version of "Occupation Lite" may eventually come to pass. For the foreseeable future, however, it is difficult to imagine anything other than an enduring status quo: a heavy troop presence, big bases spread across the country, and a steadily rising body count.
Joshua Hammer is the Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek and has reported extensively from Iraq. He is the author of A Season in Bethlehem: Unholy War in a Sacred Place and is currently a Nieman fellow at Harvard.
Illustration: Robert Neubecker
By Joshua Hammer
March/April 2005 Issue
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last December that he expected U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for another four years, he was merely confirming what any visitor to the country could have surmised. The omnipresence of the giant defense contractor KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root), the shipments of concrete and other construction materials, and the transformation of decrepit Iraqi military bases into fortified American enclaves—complete with Pizza Huts and DVD stores—are just the most obvious signs that the United States has been digging in for the long haul. It's a far cry from administration assurances after the invasion that the troops could start withdrawing from Iraq as early as the fall of 2003. And it is hardly consistent with a prediction by Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, that the troops would be out of Iraq within months, or with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi's guess that the U.S. occupation would last two years. Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX—and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support. Although Camp Victory North remains a work in progress today, when complete, the complex will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo—currently one of the largest overseas posts built since the Vietnam War.
Such a heavy footprint seems counterproductive, given the growing antipathy felt by most Iraqis toward the U.S. military occupation. Yet Camp Victory North appears to be a harbinger of America's future in Iraq. Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country—long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely. John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq’s former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.
At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. Although the Pentagon considers most of the construction to be "temporary"—designed to last up to three years—similar facilities have remained in place for much longer at other "enduring" American bases, including Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, which opened in 1999, and Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in place since the mid-1990s.
How long is "enduring"? The administration insists that troops will remain in Iraq as long as it takes to install a functioning, democratic government, quell the insurgency, and build an efficient Iraqi fighting force. Given the elusiveness of those goals, many military experts believe that Rumsfeld's hope that the troops might be out by 2008 is wildly optimistic. Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000, recently predicted that American involvement in Iraq would last at least 10 more years. Retired Army Lt. General Jay Garner, the former interim administrator of reconstruction efforts in Iraq, told reporters in February 2004 that a U.S. military presence in Iraq should last "the next few decades." Even that, some analysts warn, could be an underestimate. "Half a century ago if anyone tried to convince you that we’d still have troops in Korea and Japan, you’d think they were crazy," says Pike, the military analyst. Suspicions also run deep both inside Pentagon circles and among analysts that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into the facilities in pursuit of a different agenda entirely: to turn Iraq into a permanent base of operations in the Middle East.
If true, this scheme is fraught with danger. The presence of U.S. troops is a powerful recruitment tool for the Iraqi insurgency—as well as a source of bitter anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. Politically, the occupation is becoming increasingly untenable: Practically every significant Iraqi political figure—from Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to Iraqi president Ghazi al-Yawar, an influential Sunni Muslim—opposes the occupation and wants the troops out, and any leader who hopes to maintain credibility will have to make that a priority. "The presence of bases there is going to be a source of instability and anger for the Iraqi people, whether they are currently for the insurgency or not," says Jessica Matthews, the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. "It will convince people across the Arab world that we went there to install an American regime in the Middle East."
The other great danger of "enduring" bases, say critics, is that they tend to operate according to a well-tested axiom: The deeper you dig in, the harder it is to dig out. That's hardly reassuring to the 11,400 U.S. soldiers who’ve had their enlistments extended through the stop-loss clause in their contracts, and to others who’ve been forced to serve multiple tours in the combat zone.
One indication of an open-ended U.S. occupation is the amount of money that has already been spent on bases in Iraq. KBR’s first big building contract there, in June 2003, was a $200 million project to build and maintain "temporary housing units" for U.S. troops. Since then, according to military documents, it has received another $8.5 billion for work associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom. By far the largest sum—at least $4.5 billion—has gone to construction and maintenance of U.S. bases. By comparison, from 1999 to this spring, the U.S. government paid $1.9 billion to KBR for similar work in the Balkans.
Does the Department of Defense have a bigger agenda in Iraq? Brig. General Robert Pollman, chief engineer of base construction in Iraq, caused a stir—and forced his superiors to engage in damage control—when he told the Chicago Tribune last spring that the bases could be a "swap" for bases in Saudi Arabia. The United States has been closing bases and drawing down its forces in the kingdom in response to the growing unpopularity of the American presence there and repeated terror attacks. In mid-2003, roughly 4,500 U.S. troops reportedly redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving only about 500 in the kingdom.
Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who served in the office of the Secretary of Defense until spring 2003, and has since become an outspoken critic of the war, says that the neoconservative architects of the Iraq invasion definitely foresaw a permanent, large-scale presence. Kwiatkowski says that Pentagon planners view the bases as vital both for protecting Israel and as launchpads for operations in Syria and Iran. The Pentagon, she says, went into the war assuming that once Saddam was toppled a so-called Status of Forces Agreement, like those the U.S. government signed with Japan and South Korea, could be quickly reached with Iraq. The growth of the insurgency and the vocal opposition to a prolonged U.S. occupation among Iraqi leaders haven't changed the plan, Kwiatkowski insists: "We’re pouring concrete. We’re building little fiefdoms with security, moats, and walls…. Eighty percent of Iraqis will grouse, but they have no political power," she says. "We'll stay whether they want us to or not."
Other American officials heartily dispute that assertion. One U.S. official who served alongside L. Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority insists that base construction has been an ad hoc effort, reflecting the changing facts on the ground, not long-term strategy. "At no time did I ever overhear any meaningful discussion about 'permanent bases,'" he says. "I remember asking Bremer about it from time to time, and he would say, 'That's ludicrous.' Maybe there are some military guys brainstorming. But it just isn't on the agenda." The official concedes that permanent basing in Iraq "makes sense" from a strictly strategic perspective, given the steady reduction of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and the potential volatility of U.S. relations with other Gulf allies, like Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain, which currently have, all together, an estimated 30,000 U.S. troops stationed within their borders. But he agrees the consequences of such a move would be disastrous: Permanent bases "would be under siege, a temptation for terrorists, a symbol of U.S. occupation. It would totally undermine our political strategy in Iraq." Adds Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The next Iraqi leadership has to show they are truly sovereign and independent. And that’s hard to do if they lease significant parts of Iraq to the United States. We've already seen the ability of these insurgents to target our facilities and attack them. I'd be very reluctant to say this is a good place to base our troops."
That's not to say that the Pentagon isn't keen to maintain at least some American presence on the ground. According to one intelligence source in Baghdad, maintaining a quick reaction force in Iraq would be essential to prevent, for example, a coup against a friendly Iraqi government. And the Pentagon sees Iraq as possibly playing a role in its global realignment of U.S. forces—a shift away from the static, Cold War basing arrangements in Europe to smaller, more flexible deployments in volatile regions like the Middle East. One model they point to is Camp Lemonier, which was built in the Horn of Africa country Djibouti in 2002 and houses about 1,300 troops as well as facilities for fighter planes.
A high-ranking military officer in the Middle East says that the Pentagon envisions a small number of bases in Iraq that "in no way approximates what we have there now." He insists that "we are not planning to occupy the country. We’re talking about a small, unobtrusive presence—it could simply be facilities that give you the capability to come in and out." That version of "Occupation Lite" may eventually come to pass. For the foreseeable future, however, it is difficult to imagine anything other than an enduring status quo: a heavy troop presence, big bases spread across the country, and a steadily rising body count.
Joshua Hammer is the Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek and has reported extensively from Iraq. He is the author of A Season in Bethlehem: Unholy War in a Sacred Place and is currently a Nieman fellow at Harvard.
Illustration: Robert Neubecker
No comments:
Post a Comment