http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=8885
April 22, 2006
They're Staying in Iraq
by Kevin Zeese
The message is clear. Indeed, it's gigantic for all Iraqis, for the entire world to see. A 100 acre compound – ten times the size of the typical U.S. embassy, the size of 80 football fields, six times larger than the UN, the size of Vatican City. The US Embassy Compound, in the middle of Baghdad – the center for US domination of the Middle East and its resources.
The compound towers above the Tigris River like a modern fortress. It will have its own sources of power and water and sit in the heart of Baghdad. If there is any thought that the US is planning on leaving Iraq, the new embassy should make it clear "We're saying!"
The growing skyline of the US embassy in Baghdad is only the most recent indication that the US has no intention of leaving. President Bush has already told us we're there until the end of his tenure. More important than words, building "permanent" military bases in Iraq reinforces the message of the huge embassy.
The DoD does not like to use the word "permanent" even for our bases in Germany and Korea. Euphemisms like "enduring bases" or "contingency operating bases" are used. They're less likely than "permanent" to cause further anti-American unrest in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, told the Chicago Tribune in March 2004: "This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East." Zoltan Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., told the Christian Science Monitor that since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the US has established a string of 35 new bases between Poland and Pakistan, not including the Iraqi bases. He maintains the US is establishing a "sphere of influence" in that region. The Monitor also reports that Joseph Gerson, author of The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of Foreign US Military Bases, says the war and bases aim at maintaining US control over the Middle East with its massive oil resources.
The plan entails construction of long-lasting facilities in Iraq. The bases will include barracks and offices built of concrete blocks, rather than metal trailers and tents. The buildings are designed to withstand direct mortar strikes. Initial funding was provided in the $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill approved by Congress in May 2005.
Permanent Military Bases Planned for Iraq
The Christian Science Monitor reported in April 2006, "the Pentagon would prefer to keep its bases in Iraq. It has already spent $1 billion or more on them, outfitting some with underground bunkers and other characteristics of long-term bases. Some US bases in Iraq are huge, e.g., Camp Anaconda, north of Baghdad, occupies 15 square miles, boasts two swimming pools, a gym, a miniature-golf course, and a first-run movie theater. The $67.6 billion emergency bill to cover Iraq and Afghanistan military costs includes $348 million for further base construction."
According to Global Security Watch, on March 23, 2004 "it was reported that US engineers are focusing on constructing 14 enduring bases, 'long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The US plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk... enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul...'"
Long lasting military bases in Iraq will be an expensive budget item even if the US decides to reduce its forces to 50,000, less than half the current troop level. The annual cost would run between $5 billion to $7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Recently, the House voted, by a voice vote, to oppose a permanent military presence in Iraq. Future on the record votes for appropriations will show whether this was a symbolic election-year vote, or something the House is serious about.
President George W. Bush claims US only intends to stay "as long as necessary and not one day more." And, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld has testified on February 17, 2005 in Congress: "I can assure you that we have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq." These claims are hard to believe when Congress voted for the first funds for long-term bases that May, and construction is now underway.
As Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group, said: "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." Also, the idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003 saying: ". . . we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda."
On April 20, 2003 the New York Times reported "the US is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."
On May 2005 the Washington Post reported that plans called for consolidating American troops in Iraq into four large air bases: Tallil in the south, al-Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. Each base would support a brigade combat team, along with aviation and other support personnel.
In January 2005 it was reported that the Pentagon was building a permanent military communications system in Iraq. The new Central Iraq Microwave System, is to consist of up to 12 communications towers throughout Iraq, along with fiber-optic cables connecting Camp Victory to other coalition bases in the country. The US also has plans to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for US troops headed north.
The infrastructure is being put in place for a long-term military presence in Iraq. Unless Americans get tired of footing the growing and expensive bill for occupying Iraq – now at nearly $10 Billion per month – or the Iraqis are able to force the United States to leave it looks like Baghdad will be the center of operations for the US presence in the Middle East. The US will be sitting on top of the Earth's vast, but shrinking, oil resources.
MAPS of US bases can be seen at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac...y/iraq-maps.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Description of the 14 Long-Term Bases in Iraq
Source: GlobalSecurity.org
As of mid-2005, the US military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.
1) Green Zone (Baghdad)
The Green Zone in central Baghdad includes the main palaces of former President Saddam Hussein. The area at one time housed the Coalition Provisional Authority; it still houses the offices of major US consulting companies and the temporary US embassy facilities.
2) Camp Anaconda (Balad Airbase)
Camp Anaconda is a large US logistical base near Balad. The camp is spread over 15 square miles and is being constructed to accommodate 20,000 soldiers.
3) Camp Taji (Taji)
Camp Taji, former Iraqi Republican Guard "military city," is now a huge US base equipped with a Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut on the premises.
4) 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.
5) Post Freedom (Mosul)
Saddam Hussein's former palace in Mosul is currently home to the 101st Airborne Division.
6) Camp Victory- Al Nasr (Baghdad Airfield)
Camp Victory is a US 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.
7) Camp Marez (Mosul Airfield)
Located at an airfield southwest of Mosul, Camp Marez has a tent dining capacity for 500. In December 2004, a suicide bomber killed himself and 13 US soldiers at the base’s dining tent.
8) 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.
9) Camp Speicher (Tikrit)
Named after F/A-18 pilot Michael "Scott" Speicher who was shot down during the first Gulf War in 1991, Camp Speicher is located near Tikrit in northern Iraq, approximately 170 kilometers north of Baghdad.
10) Camp Fallujuh (Rail Station?)
The exact whereabouts and name of this base is unknown. Analysts believe that the US 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.
11) Unknown name (Nasiriyah)
The exact whereabouts and name of this base is unknown. Analysts believe that the US is building an "enduring base" near Nasiriyah, a provincial capital of South-East Iraq on the Euphrates River.
12) Unknown name (between Irbil and Kirkuk)
13) Unknown
14) Unknown
Full Version: They're Staying in Iraq
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/saavedra.php?articleid=8884
April 21, 2006
The Billion-Dollar
Baghdad Embassy
by Leigh Saavedra
That's the estimate, though only half of it has been appropriated so far: a billion dollars to build a new embassy in Iraq. It will be the largest on the globe, the largest the world has ever seen, the size of Vatican City in Italy.
U.S. embassies typically cover 10 acres. This one, a 104-acre complex, will comprise 21 buildings, its own water wells, an electricity plant, and a wastewater treatment facility, making the huge compound completely independent of Iraq, whose "interim government" sold the land to the U.S. in October 2004. The terms of the agreement do not appear to be readily accessible.
The massive compound will include two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, apartment buildings for staff, and a recreational facility that will provide a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court, and American Club.
In this case, the devil is less in the details than in the monumental size and cost of the endeavor. The likeness to a small fortified city is frightening to those who object to a permanent presence of the U.S. in Iraq, which has already been destroyed by American bombs and depleted uranium, and the core of such fear lies in the question of why the U.S., already dangerously in debt back home and dangerously despised in Iraq and most of the Mideast, is pounding its chest with such a noisy bravado. Is this the finale of "Shock and Awe"?
Those working in the embassy-city will be protected by extraordinary security, overseen by U.S. Marines. Structures will be reinforced to 2.5 times the standard. There will be five high-security entrances as well as an emergency entrance/exit, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report.
Foreign relations? Presumably the hope was at some point to look for olive branches, the U.S. and Iraq shaking hands and agreeing to go back to "Go" and start all over. So from whom is such vast and expensive protection necessary? Were we ever within even shouting distance of being "liberators"? What kind of thinking would pour so much into a country that the White House says we want to turn over to the Iraqis as soon as possible? After all, we're the folks who brought "freedom" to Iraq. So why this elaborate expenditure at the same time that the people of the U.S. have finally awakened and turned against the invasion and occupation of a country that we know never posed a threat to the U.S. or anyone else?
It's a hair past income tax time. Shouldn't those of us who filed have a word to say about where our checks are going? We've said, "No more. We want out as soon as possible." And yet the building goes on, about a third completed as of this writing.
Shall we take comfort in Mr. Bush's reassurances and hope he has a secret plan? Shall we look on the bright side and hope this impressive compound of compounds might eventually become an orphanage for the children whose parents we've blown to bits?
This is a notable expenditure. We, the dwindling middle class, are paying for it, and paying through the teeth. And we're not paying sums like this for something that's meant to be temporary.
Of our neocon acquaintances and apolitical friends we might ask: Can you read about this construction, look at the numbers involved, think of the homeless, disease-ridden people of Iraq, suffering from the highest unemployment of their lives and often having difficulty finding clean water, and then truly believe that the U.S. went to the Garden of Eden to help the Iraqi people?
The war supporters tell us that we don't hear the good news, that the media presents only the bad. Thus, with this gargantuan but hush-hush project, we have to conclude that the construction of a permanent presence, an enormous watchtower over the entire Mideast (and its oil), is the good news.
But it's quiet out there, with a thick buffer between the people who want this insanity to end and the sound of hammers and drills building walls, and more walls, and more. Surely to a once-proud Iraqi civilian, every wheelbarrow of mortar dragged across the new pavement covering much of ancient Babylon is a symbol of unending loss.
April 21, 2006
The Billion-Dollar
Baghdad Embassy
by Leigh Saavedra
That's the estimate, though only half of it has been appropriated so far: a billion dollars to build a new embassy in Iraq. It will be the largest on the globe, the largest the world has ever seen, the size of Vatican City in Italy.
U.S. embassies typically cover 10 acres. This one, a 104-acre complex, will comprise 21 buildings, its own water wells, an electricity plant, and a wastewater treatment facility, making the huge compound completely independent of Iraq, whose "interim government" sold the land to the U.S. in October 2004. The terms of the agreement do not appear to be readily accessible.
The massive compound will include two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, apartment buildings for staff, and a recreational facility that will provide a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court, and American Club.
In this case, the devil is less in the details than in the monumental size and cost of the endeavor. The likeness to a small fortified city is frightening to those who object to a permanent presence of the U.S. in Iraq, which has already been destroyed by American bombs and depleted uranium, and the core of such fear lies in the question of why the U.S., already dangerously in debt back home and dangerously despised in Iraq and most of the Mideast, is pounding its chest with such a noisy bravado. Is this the finale of "Shock and Awe"?
Those working in the embassy-city will be protected by extraordinary security, overseen by U.S. Marines. Structures will be reinforced to 2.5 times the standard. There will be five high-security entrances as well as an emergency entrance/exit, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report.
Foreign relations? Presumably the hope was at some point to look for olive branches, the U.S. and Iraq shaking hands and agreeing to go back to "Go" and start all over. So from whom is such vast and expensive protection necessary? Were we ever within even shouting distance of being "liberators"? What kind of thinking would pour so much into a country that the White House says we want to turn over to the Iraqis as soon as possible? After all, we're the folks who brought "freedom" to Iraq. So why this elaborate expenditure at the same time that the people of the U.S. have finally awakened and turned against the invasion and occupation of a country that we know never posed a threat to the U.S. or anyone else?
It's a hair past income tax time. Shouldn't those of us who filed have a word to say about where our checks are going? We've said, "No more. We want out as soon as possible." And yet the building goes on, about a third completed as of this writing.
Shall we take comfort in Mr. Bush's reassurances and hope he has a secret plan? Shall we look on the bright side and hope this impressive compound of compounds might eventually become an orphanage for the children whose parents we've blown to bits?
This is a notable expenditure. We, the dwindling middle class, are paying for it, and paying through the teeth. And we're not paying sums like this for something that's meant to be temporary.
Of our neocon acquaintances and apolitical friends we might ask: Can you read about this construction, look at the numbers involved, think of the homeless, disease-ridden people of Iraq, suffering from the highest unemployment of their lives and often having difficulty finding clean water, and then truly believe that the U.S. went to the Garden of Eden to help the Iraqi people?
The war supporters tell us that we don't hear the good news, that the media presents only the bad. Thus, with this gargantuan but hush-hush project, we have to conclude that the construction of a permanent presence, an enormous watchtower over the entire Mideast (and its oil), is the good news.
But it's quiet out there, with a thick buffer between the people who want this insanity to end and the sound of hammers and drills building walls, and more walls, and more. Surely to a once-proud Iraqi civilian, every wheelbarrow of mortar dragged across the new pavement covering much of ancient Babylon is a symbol of unending loss.
100 acres? That's smaller than the 145 acres on my farm. Roughly half a mile by 3/8ths of a mile. Back when I kept myself in shape I could run around the perimeter of something that size in less than ten minutes.
Might seem big to somebody used to a 80x120 city lot but in reality not all that big. Oh, I just realized the problem when I noticed the source of the story. http://www.antiwar.com/ To such liliputian small thinkers this embasy must feel gigantic.
Might seem big to somebody used to a 80x120 city lot but in reality not all that big. Oh, I just realized the problem when I noticed the source of the story. http://www.antiwar.com/ To such liliputian small thinkers this embasy must feel gigantic.
QUOTE(Marine @ Apr 22 2006, 06:34 AM)
100 acres? That's smaller than the 145 acres on my farm. Roughly half a mile by 3/8ths of a mile. Back when I kept myself in shape I could run around the perimeter of something that size in less than ten minutes.
Might seem big to somebody used to a 80x120 city lot but in reality not all that big. Oh, I just realized the problem when I noticed the source of the story. http://www.antiwar.com/ To such liliputian small thinkers this embasy must feel gigantic.
Might seem big to somebody used to a 80x120 city lot but in reality not all that big. Oh, I just realized the problem when I noticed the source of the story. http://www.antiwar.com/ To such liliputian small thinkers this embasy must feel gigantic.
Why would we need an embassy that size in Iraq? Even the one in China is only 10 acres. (Why do we need embassies this large anyway???)
QUOTE
Construction is well under way for a new American Embassy in Beijing. Ground was broken February 10, 2004 for what Charles E. Williams, Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations described as, "The largest single construction project undertaken by the Department of State on foreign soil." The new Embassy is scheduled to open for business before the start of the summer Olympic games in Beijing in 2008.
The new Embassy will feature five separate buildings, each with specific functions, on a ten-acre site in Beijing's third diplomatic area in the Liang Ma He neighborhood. The five buildings are separated from each other but linked by both indoor and outdoor circulation paths. The spaces between buildings are organized as a series of outdoor rooms, courtyards, gardens and landscaped areas. The five buildings, ranging in height from two to eight stories, include a main office building, a support office building, a Consular building, a Marine Security Guard Quarters and recreation building, and a parking structure. While the arrangement of the buildings on the site and the features of the landscape are based on ancient Chinese planning principles, the design of the buildings themselves is representative of the best modern design that America has to offer.
The new Embassy will feature five separate buildings, each with specific functions, on a ten-acre site in Beijing's third diplomatic area in the Liang Ma He neighborhood. The five buildings are separated from each other but linked by both indoor and outdoor circulation paths. The spaces between buildings are organized as a series of outdoor rooms, courtyards, gardens and landscaped areas. The five buildings, ranging in height from two to eight stories, include a main office building, a support office building, a Consular building, a Marine Security Guard Quarters and recreation building, and a parking structure. While the arrangement of the buildings on the site and the features of the landscape are based on ancient Chinese planning principles, the design of the buildings themselves is representative of the best modern design that America has to offer.
http://beijing.usembassy.gov/new_embassy.html
I hope people start talking about the U.S. commitment of bases around the globe and how much it is costing taxpayers to keep this level of commitment. Terrorism is the new communism. How convenient. All this expense while the infrastructure of the U.S. is weakened, while the U.S. is totally indebted to China, while the U.S. loses competitiveness with China and India, and while we're still sucking oil like there's no tomorrow.
Why does a thread whose main onus is the size and scope of an embassy, even if 'tis in Baghdad, belong under "U.S. Military Issues" is beyond me, eh? Has this area become a dumpin' ground (again)?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 23 2006, 10:06 AM)
Why does a thread whose main onus is the size and scope of an embassy, even if 'tis in Baghdad, belong under "U.S. Military Issues" is beyond me, eh? Has this area become a dumpin' ground (again)?
Do you have some proprietary claim on this section of the CGCS forum?
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Apr 23 2006, 02:13 PM)
Do you have some proprietary claim on this section of the CGCS forum?
Nope! Methinks I was just askin' a simple question, eh? You gotta problem with that?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 23 2006, 10:25 AM)
Nope! Methinks I was just askin' a simple question, eh? You gotta problem with that?
I experienced the tone in your question about this becoming a dumping ground (again?) as accusatory and like you had a vested interest in protecting this area of the CGCS forum. Maybe you do, as you spent so much time in the military, and would seem to feel the need to defend it.
This topic may be better placed under foreign policy, as much of the article that was initially posted here deals with the policy of permanent military bases in Iraq and elsewhere. U.S. Military Issues would seem to be more about personnel issues rather than about policy issues. But since so much of our foreign policy is about the military, it's hard to separate the two!!
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Apr 23 2006, 02:40 PM)
I experienced the tone in your question about this becoming a dumping ground (again?) as accusatory and like you had a vested interest in protecting this area of the CGCS forum. Maybe you do, as you spent so much time in the military, and would seem to feel the need to defend it.
This topic may be better placed under foreign policy, as much of the article that was initially posted here deals with the policy of permanent military bases in Iraq and elsewhere. U.S. Military Issues would seem to be more about personnel issues rather than about policy issues. But since so much of our foreign policy is about the military, it's hard to separate the two!!
Okay, 'twould seem to me that you see thepremise of my question and agree with me then, eh? Thank you!
This topic may be better placed under foreign policy, as much of the article that was initially posted here deals with the policy of permanent military bases in Iraq and elsewhere. U.S. Military Issues would seem to be more about personnel issues rather than about policy issues. But since so much of our foreign policy is about the military, it's hard to separate the two!!
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 23 2006, 10:43 AM)
Okay, 'twould seem to me that you agree with me then, eh? Thank you!
Not entirely.
I don't consider articles critical of permanent U.S. military bases as being "dumping."
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Apr 23 2006, 11:59 AM)
Why would we need an embassy that size in Iraq? Even the one in China is only 10 acres. (Why do we need embassies this large anyway???)
http://beijing.usembassy.gov/new_embassy.html
I hope people start talking about the U.S. commitment of bases around the globe and how much it is costing taxpayers to keep this level of commitment. Terrorism is the new communism. How convenient. All this expense while the infrastructure of the U.S. is weakened, while the U.S. is totally indebted to China, while the U.S. loses competitiveness with China and India, and while we're still sucking oil like there's no tomorrow.
http://beijing.usembassy.gov/new_embassy.html
I hope people start talking about the U.S. commitment of bases around the globe and how much it is costing taxpayers to keep this level of commitment. Terrorism is the new communism. How convenient. All this expense while the infrastructure of the U.S. is weakened, while the U.S. is totally indebted to China, while the U.S. loses competitiveness with China and India, and while we're still sucking oil like there's no tomorrow.
Well, golly, since Israel has had to put up with jack asses lobbing mortar shells into their towns and cities for almost sixty years so I guess we should just ignore that bit of information.
Of course we won't have to deal with Islamic terrorist for years in the Middle East. We can negotiate with them and they will leave us alone, right? The last time this country wasn't being attacked by those jack asses Gerald Ford was president
We should build a nice small embassy just to comfort the folks concerned about costs. But if we do when some jack ass lobs a mortar shell at our embassy they can be sure each and every shell will hit something important, eh?
When's the last time you looked at any products manufactured in China or India? I bought a generator to use on the farm here mail order, it said it had an exact copy of a Honda G4100 engine in the advertisement. Now the G4100 engine made by Honda is the gold standard of small gasoline engines. Let me tell you that Honda does not have a thing to worry about when it comes to Chinese copies of their G4100 engine.
I went to a farm trade show a couple of years back. Ever heard of Mahindra Tractors? You probably never will. They are a cheap agricultural tractor made in India, sells for about half the price of a real tractor. If you ever see one try to count all the technilogical features they borrowed from Yugo. They also had a Chinese hay baler at the same trade show. I can describe it in two word, cheap junk.
It's going to be a long time before China or India manufactures quality industrial equipment.
QUOTE(Marine @ Apr 23 2006, 11:08 AM)
Well, golly, since Israel has had to put up with jack asses lobbing mortar shells into their towns and cities for almost sixty years so I guess we should just ignore that bit of information.
Of course we won't have to deal with Islamic terrorist for years in the Middle East. We can negotiate with them and they will leave us alone, right? The last time this country wasn't being attacked by those jack asses Gerald Ford was president
We should build a nice small embassy just to comfort the folks concerned about costs. But if we do when some jack ass lobs a mortar shell at our embassy they can be sure each and every shell will hit something important, eh?
When's the last time you looked at any products manufactured in China or India? I bought a generator to use on the farm here mail order, it said it had an exact copy of a Honda G4100 engine in the advertisement. Now the G4100 engine made by Honda is the gold standard of small gasoline engines. Let me tell you that Honda does not have a thing to worry about when it comes to Chinese copies of their G4100 engine.
I went to a farm trade show a couple of years back. Ever heard of Mahindra Tractors? You probably never will. They are a cheap agricultural tractor made in India, sells for about half the price of a real tractor. If you ever see one try to count all the technilogical features they borrowed from Yugo. They also had a Chinese hay baler at the same trade show. I can describe it in two word, cheap junk.
It's going to be a long time before China or India manufactures quality industrial equipment.
Of course we won't have to deal with Islamic terrorist for years in the Middle East. We can negotiate with them and they will leave us alone, right? The last time this country wasn't being attacked by those jack asses Gerald Ford was president
We should build a nice small embassy just to comfort the folks concerned about costs. But if we do when some jack ass lobs a mortar shell at our embassy they can be sure each and every shell will hit something important, eh?
When's the last time you looked at any products manufactured in China or India? I bought a generator to use on the farm here mail order, it said it had an exact copy of a Honda G4100 engine in the advertisement. Now the G4100 engine made by Honda is the gold standard of small gasoline engines. Let me tell you that Honda does not have a thing to worry about when it comes to Chinese copies of their G4100 engine.
I went to a farm trade show a couple of years back. Ever heard of Mahindra Tractors? You probably never will. They are a cheap agricultural tractor made in India, sells for about half the price of a real tractor. If you ever see one try to count all the technilogical features they borrowed from Yugo. They also had a Chinese hay baler at the same trade show. I can describe it in two word, cheap junk.
It's going to be a long time before China or India manufactures quality industrial equipment.
I am a firm believer that it is not who we are or who the Israelis are that is causing terrorists to hate and attack us. It is what we do. So, when you talk about people lobbing mortar shells on Israeli towns or U.S. embassies, my immediate response is to ask "Why are they doing that?" And, I think there are plenty of sources that I could find that would explain the answer to that question. We are not innocent victims, Marine, even though you seem to portary the U.S. and Israel as such. Far from it!
Your anecdotal evidence may illustrate valid concerns about the quality of merchandise manufactured by the Chinese or Indians. However, when was the last time you tried to buy a piece of clothing that was manufactured in the U.S., or a pair of scissors even!?
Senator Bayh is even talking about the danger to our sovereignty because of our indebtedness to China.
And, I took note of what Ted Kennedy said on the Daily Show the other night with regard to the comparison between us and China and India in education, which is backed up by this article in Business Week magazine. China and India face major challenges, but their rise to prominence should serve as a wake-up call to Americans.
[This is part of a much longer article.]
QUOTE
AUGUST 22, 2005
CHINA AND INDIA -- THE CHALLENGE
A New World Economy
The balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve
One implication is that the balance of power in many technologies will likely move from West to East. An obvious reason is that China and India graduate a combined half a million engineers and scientists a year, vs. 60,000 in the U.S. In life sciences, projects the McKinsey Global Institute, the total number of young researchers in both nations will rise by 35%, to 1.6 million by 2008. The U.S. supply will drop by 11%, to 760,000. As most Western scientists will tell you, China and India already are making important contributions in medicine and materials that will help everyone. Because these nations can throw more brains at technical problems at a fraction of the cost, their contributions to innovation will grow.
CHINA AND INDIA -- THE CHALLENGE
A New World Economy
The balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve
One implication is that the balance of power in many technologies will likely move from West to East. An obvious reason is that China and India graduate a combined half a million engineers and scientists a year, vs. 60,000 in the U.S. In life sciences, projects the McKinsey Global Institute, the total number of young researchers in both nations will rise by 35%, to 1.6 million by 2008. The U.S. supply will drop by 11%, to 760,000. As most Western scientists will tell you, China and India already are making important contributions in medicine and materials that will help everyone. Because these nations can throw more brains at technical problems at a fraction of the cost, their contributions to innovation will grow.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...34/b3948401.htm
Well beamer, I think the reason we and Israel are being attacked is because the Islamic fundamentalist can't understand that world has progressed since the days of Suleiman.
Suleiman ruled as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520-1566. The Empire reached its Golden Age during his reign in the mid-sixteenth century. Suleiman's navy ruled over the Mediterranean Sea, and his Ottoman Empire ruled Arab Iraq, a portion of land in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, and Kurdistan, and the provinces of Nakhichevan, Erevan, and Karabagh His empire stretched from the gates of Vienna to Yemen and Aden, from Persia to Oran, and he ruled over the Six Wonders of the Ancient World. He felt very strongly about his position, as evidenced by this quote from Suleiman himself:
"I, who am Sultan of the Sultans of East and West, fortunate lord of the domains of the Romans, Persians, and Arabs, Hero of creation, Neriman of the earth and time, Padishah and Sultan of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, of the extolled Kaaba and Medina the illustrious and Jerusalem of the noble, of the throne of Egypt and the province of Yemen, Aden, and San'a, of Baghdad and Basra and Lhasa and Ctesiphon, of the lands of Algiers and Azerbaijan, of the region of the Kipshaks and the lands of the Tartars, of Kurdistan and Luristan and all Rumelia, Anatolia and Karaman, of Wallachia and Moldavia and Hungary and many kingdoms and lands besides; the Sultan Suleyman Khan, son of the Sultan Selim Khan."
In the 16th century Islam was the sparkling jewell of culture and learning, the envy of the world. The 16th century's superpower. But that was 500 years ago, now they are, the best I can say of Islamic fundamentalist, backwards and repressive.
They view Israel as the reason they can not re-achieve their preeminence in the world. They see the United States as the power propping up Israel.
You know beamer, we could be good friends with these Islamic fundamentalist. We could sit back and do nothing as they go through the State of Israel cutting every Jewish throat they can find. When they are done then we can justify it by saying well, I guess Hitler was right all along.
Suleiman ruled as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520-1566. The Empire reached its Golden Age during his reign in the mid-sixteenth century. Suleiman's navy ruled over the Mediterranean Sea, and his Ottoman Empire ruled Arab Iraq, a portion of land in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, and Kurdistan, and the provinces of Nakhichevan, Erevan, and Karabagh His empire stretched from the gates of Vienna to Yemen and Aden, from Persia to Oran, and he ruled over the Six Wonders of the Ancient World. He felt very strongly about his position, as evidenced by this quote from Suleiman himself:
"I, who am Sultan of the Sultans of East and West, fortunate lord of the domains of the Romans, Persians, and Arabs, Hero of creation, Neriman of the earth and time, Padishah and Sultan of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, of the extolled Kaaba and Medina the illustrious and Jerusalem of the noble, of the throne of Egypt and the province of Yemen, Aden, and San'a, of Baghdad and Basra and Lhasa and Ctesiphon, of the lands of Algiers and Azerbaijan, of the region of the Kipshaks and the lands of the Tartars, of Kurdistan and Luristan and all Rumelia, Anatolia and Karaman, of Wallachia and Moldavia and Hungary and many kingdoms and lands besides; the Sultan Suleyman Khan, son of the Sultan Selim Khan."
In the 16th century Islam was the sparkling jewell of culture and learning, the envy of the world. The 16th century's superpower. But that was 500 years ago, now they are, the best I can say of Islamic fundamentalist, backwards and repressive.
They view Israel as the reason they can not re-achieve their preeminence in the world. They see the United States as the power propping up Israel.
You know beamer, we could be good friends with these Islamic fundamentalist. We could sit back and do nothing as they go through the State of Israel cutting every Jewish throat they can find. When they are done then we can justify it by saying well, I guess Hitler was right all along.
In regards to Chinese and Indians educational achievments I would ask, whose fault is that?
The American education system provides for an equal opportunity for all to uniformly receive a mediocre education and has done so for a long time. When I graduated from High School in 1969, looking back on it, I would say I was functionally illiterate in math and science.
I became aware of this when I enrolled at a private university to get my first bachelors degree. Most everyone else in the school were products of college prep or private schools. You would not believe how I struggle with college algebra, I was not prepared for real college level mathematics what so ever. I ended up taking a remedial non credit math course and made strait A's there after.
The American education system provides for an equal opportunity for all to uniformly receive a mediocre education and has done so for a long time. When I graduated from High School in 1969, looking back on it, I would say I was functionally illiterate in math and science.
I became aware of this when I enrolled at a private university to get my first bachelors degree. Most everyone else in the school were products of college prep or private schools. You would not believe how I struggle with college algebra, I was not prepared for real college level mathematics what so ever. I ended up taking a remedial non credit math course and made strait A's there after.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12441799/site/newsweek/
Stuck in the Hot Zone
Don't dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
May 1, 2006 issue - Maj. Micah Morgan fondly pats the nose of his Predator drone, much as a cavalry officer of old might have stroked the muzzle of his prized horse. "This is the future of the Air Force," says Morgan, a former B-1 bomber pilot. It is a glorious day in the Sunni Triangle. Outside the "wire" of Balad Air Base the insurgency still rages and sectarian war looms, but the sky above is a deep azure and, no small thing, wholly American-owned. A relaxed Morgan watches from the shade of Saddam Hussein's old hardened hangars as another Predator—an unmanned craft about the size of a Cessna—approaches for a remote-control landing at the vast airfield after a recon mission. Stepping into one of his modular "ground-control stations," which are encased in steel and shipped to Balad as single units, Morgan flicks on a screen that shows his flock of drones (the exact number is classified, but it's the largest fleet in the world) hovering over Baghdad, each carrying two Hellfire missiles and searching with uncanny clarity for insurgents and other signs of trouble.
The American airman who is piloting these drones, however, is not in Iraq. He is 7,000 miles away, in Las Vegas. Once Morgan's small crew at Balad gets the Predators aloft—a tricky business that still requires on-site piloting, as does landing—they are switched by satellite to the control of an operator at Nellis Air Force Base outside Sin City. Then, using new "Rover" technology, whatever the Predators spot on their cameras and infrared heat detectors can be beamed to the onboard screen of any ground commander in a Humvee, Bradley or tank. In the future, that commander will likely be a U.S. officer embedded in an Iraqi Army or police unit, feeding intel to his Iraqi protégés. Morgan, who still marvels at the idea, says: "Some guy in Vegas gets to knock off at 7, go out to the casino or lay out by the pool, and he's just flown a combat mission in Iraq." And the new Predators to be deployed at Balad over the next couple of years are going to be bigger and better, carrying more Hellfires, and some larger JDAM bombs as well. Huge new ramps and runway aprons are also under construction. These are designed, in part, to accommodate a C-130 cargo squadron that moved here from Kuwait in January to relieve vulnerable Army supply convoys in Iraq.
With 27,500 aircraft passing through each month, Balad is second only to London's Heathrow airport in traffic worldwide, according to Brig. Gen. Frank Gorenc, the base commander and leader of 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Gorenc said he's "normalizing" the giant Balad airfield, or gradually rebuilding it to U.S. military specs. The Saddam-era concrete is considered too substandard for the F-16s, C-130s and other aircraft that fly in and out so regularly, they crack the tarmac. At this point, virtually none of the traffic is Iraqi: the national Air Force has only three crews of transport airmen. "It's safe to say Balad will be here for a long time," says Gorenc, who feels at home in Iraqi skies, where the Air Force has been having its way since the first gulf war. "One of the issues of sovereignty for any country is the ability to control their own airspace. We will probably be helping the Iraqis with that problem for a very long time."
If you want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four "superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists. Sovereignty issues still need to be worked out by mutual, legal agreement. But even as Iraqi politicians settle on a new government after four months of stalemate—on Saturday, they agreed on a new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki—they also are welcoming the long-term U.S. presence. Sectarian conflict here has worsened in recent months, outstripping the anti-American insurgency in significance, and many Iraqis know there is no alternative to U.S. troops for the foreseeable future. "I think the presence of the American forces can be seen as an insurance policy for the unity of Iraq," says national-security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. Embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's "international zone" is "massive ... the largest embassy to date," says Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department's Overseas Building Operations office. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Williams called it the "most ambitious project" his office has undertaken in its history (see photo and caption above). Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal. The Pentagon has one intel officer assigned to produce and update analyses regarding the consequences of a U.S. pullout. But the job is only a part-time assignment, according to a Pentagon source who asked for anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter. As President George W. Bush himself said in March, the final number of U.S. troops "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Life on the emerging Iraqi superbases is safer and easier than elsewhere in the country. Though soldiers and airmen at Balad jokingly call it "Mortaritaville," no one's been hit since January. And compared to the muddy, Porta Potti unpleasantness U.S. servicemen endure out at approximately 75 small "forward operating bases," Balad is shaping up to resemble a warrior's country club. A new rec hall is being built, and there is a 24/7 cybercafé, a premium coffee shop (Green Beans, known as the soldier's Starbucks worldwide), an indoor mini-golf course and a movie theater. There is an outdoor and an indoor pool left over from Uday Hussein's days training Iraqi Olympians here, but few remaining signs of the Hussein family, or indeed of anything Iraqi at all: to get to the big pool you head down Texas Avenue, around Victory Loop past David Letterman Boulevard and then down Balad's main drag, called Pennsylvania Avenue.
True, most Iraqis don't like the U.S. occupation today any better than they did a year ago, or two, or three. But with the exception of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, no major politician is calling for U.S. withdrawal. "Even guys who want Americans to leave, they know it will be civil war if they do," says Ahmed al-Jobory, an unemployed chemical engineer working at Balad. What is emerging is a sense of psychological dependency. Even the new Iraqi Army, on which Washington is spending billions, is designed to be weak. The Army just received its first armor from the United States: light-skinned Humvees. But the Pentagon won't be giving up any tanks. "The goal is to have them equipped to fight a counterinsurgency, not to defend against external threats," says Lt. Col. Michael Negard, public-affairs officer for the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. (The military says it needs to help the Iraqi Army win the fight it's in now, not the battles of the future.)
U.S. officials routinely deny that America intends to put down permanent bases. "A key planning factor in our basing strategy is that there will be no bases in Iraq following Operation Iraqi Freedom," says Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for CENTCOM in Baghdad. "What we have in Iraq are 'contingency bases,' intended to support our operations in Iraq on a temporary basis until OIF is complete." But according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, roughly double what it plans to spend in Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates combined. Of that, the single biggest share is intended for Balad ($231 million).
Technically, Colonel Johnson may be telling the truth about the Pentagon's long-term plans. But it is also true that the U.S. government has never drawn up plans for "permanent" military bases, even when it ended up staying for half a century. In Korea, where tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers have been deployed for 55 years, since the end of the Korean War, "they're only just now moving American troops out of temporary facilities like huts to real buildings," says John Pike, a Washington security expert. A White House official, asked last week about long-term U.S. plans, himself made the analogy to Asia and to Germany. In every conflict the United States has recently been involved in, except Vietnam, U.S. forces have remained in the country, said the official, who asked for anonymity because the matter is considered sensitive.In fact, the plans for Balad fit in with Rumsfeld's larger designs for a dramatic reconfiguring of U.S. forces overseas. Big cold-war bases, with tens of thousands of permanently garrisoned troops, are on the way out. On the way in: giant "lily pads" for expeditionary U.S. forces to use only when needed, with ready equipment warehoused there. Balad, with its huge offramps and aprons, is a testing ground for that concept, according to several Pentagon officials. Major Morgan, for one, describes the deployment of Predators that are piloted from the United States as a "perfect example of being expeditionary."
One big question is whether a reduced but long-term U.S. presence in Iraq can be effective. Counterinsurgency experts say that sectarian conflict and insurgencies simply can't be fought from the air. And the Air Force officers at Balad say that, at long last, they're getting that message. The result is that, rather than dropping bombs, F-16s in Iraq today are doing police work from 15,000 feet, using brand-new advanced targeting pods, which can pick up activity on the ground day or night. Since January, says F-16 squadron commander Pete (Guns) Gersten, he has been feeding the info to his Army "brothers" rather than bombing the targets. "The Army said, 'Every time you blow stuff up, we get it back five times [in reprisals]'," he says. "So now we just do a lot of surveillance for the Army. They say it's time to start building. It's time to quit blowing things up."
But Gersten adds that, when it comes to preventing all-out civil war, control of the skies is crucial. "When I show up at a firefight, it stops," he says. "We're the big brother." Bristle-headed and lean in his tan flight suit, Gersten looks very much like a character out of "Top Gun." Is he a tad overconfident? Perhaps. But he fairly well sums up how Washington sees its role in Iraq today—and for a long time to come.
With John Barry and Mark Hosenball in Washington, Michael Hastings in New York and Scott Johnson in Baghdad
Stuck in the Hot Zone
Don't dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
May 1, 2006 issue - Maj. Micah Morgan fondly pats the nose of his Predator drone, much as a cavalry officer of old might have stroked the muzzle of his prized horse. "This is the future of the Air Force," says Morgan, a former B-1 bomber pilot. It is a glorious day in the Sunni Triangle. Outside the "wire" of Balad Air Base the insurgency still rages and sectarian war looms, but the sky above is a deep azure and, no small thing, wholly American-owned. A relaxed Morgan watches from the shade of Saddam Hussein's old hardened hangars as another Predator—an unmanned craft about the size of a Cessna—approaches for a remote-control landing at the vast airfield after a recon mission. Stepping into one of his modular "ground-control stations," which are encased in steel and shipped to Balad as single units, Morgan flicks on a screen that shows his flock of drones (the exact number is classified, but it's the largest fleet in the world) hovering over Baghdad, each carrying two Hellfire missiles and searching with uncanny clarity for insurgents and other signs of trouble.
The American airman who is piloting these drones, however, is not in Iraq. He is 7,000 miles away, in Las Vegas. Once Morgan's small crew at Balad gets the Predators aloft—a tricky business that still requires on-site piloting, as does landing—they are switched by satellite to the control of an operator at Nellis Air Force Base outside Sin City. Then, using new "Rover" technology, whatever the Predators spot on their cameras and infrared heat detectors can be beamed to the onboard screen of any ground commander in a Humvee, Bradley or tank. In the future, that commander will likely be a U.S. officer embedded in an Iraqi Army or police unit, feeding intel to his Iraqi protégés. Morgan, who still marvels at the idea, says: "Some guy in Vegas gets to knock off at 7, go out to the casino or lay out by the pool, and he's just flown a combat mission in Iraq." And the new Predators to be deployed at Balad over the next couple of years are going to be bigger and better, carrying more Hellfires, and some larger JDAM bombs as well. Huge new ramps and runway aprons are also under construction. These are designed, in part, to accommodate a C-130 cargo squadron that moved here from Kuwait in January to relieve vulnerable Army supply convoys in Iraq.
With 27,500 aircraft passing through each month, Balad is second only to London's Heathrow airport in traffic worldwide, according to Brig. Gen. Frank Gorenc, the base commander and leader of 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Gorenc said he's "normalizing" the giant Balad airfield, or gradually rebuilding it to U.S. military specs. The Saddam-era concrete is considered too substandard for the F-16s, C-130s and other aircraft that fly in and out so regularly, they crack the tarmac. At this point, virtually none of the traffic is Iraqi: the national Air Force has only three crews of transport airmen. "It's safe to say Balad will be here for a long time," says Gorenc, who feels at home in Iraqi skies, where the Air Force has been having its way since the first gulf war. "One of the issues of sovereignty for any country is the ability to control their own airspace. We will probably be helping the Iraqis with that problem for a very long time."
If you want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four "superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists. Sovereignty issues still need to be worked out by mutual, legal agreement. But even as Iraqi politicians settle on a new government after four months of stalemate—on Saturday, they agreed on a new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki—they also are welcoming the long-term U.S. presence. Sectarian conflict here has worsened in recent months, outstripping the anti-American insurgency in significance, and many Iraqis know there is no alternative to U.S. troops for the foreseeable future. "I think the presence of the American forces can be seen as an insurance policy for the unity of Iraq," says national-security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. Embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's "international zone" is "massive ... the largest embassy to date," says Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department's Overseas Building Operations office. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Williams called it the "most ambitious project" his office has undertaken in its history (see photo and caption above). Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal. The Pentagon has one intel officer assigned to produce and update analyses regarding the consequences of a U.S. pullout. But the job is only a part-time assignment, according to a Pentagon source who asked for anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter. As President George W. Bush himself said in March, the final number of U.S. troops "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Life on the emerging Iraqi superbases is safer and easier than elsewhere in the country. Though soldiers and airmen at Balad jokingly call it "Mortaritaville," no one's been hit since January. And compared to the muddy, Porta Potti unpleasantness U.S. servicemen endure out at approximately 75 small "forward operating bases," Balad is shaping up to resemble a warrior's country club. A new rec hall is being built, and there is a 24/7 cybercafé, a premium coffee shop (Green Beans, known as the soldier's Starbucks worldwide), an indoor mini-golf course and a movie theater. There is an outdoor and an indoor pool left over from Uday Hussein's days training Iraqi Olympians here, but few remaining signs of the Hussein family, or indeed of anything Iraqi at all: to get to the big pool you head down Texas Avenue, around Victory Loop past David Letterman Boulevard and then down Balad's main drag, called Pennsylvania Avenue.
True, most Iraqis don't like the U.S. occupation today any better than they did a year ago, or two, or three. But with the exception of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, no major politician is calling for U.S. withdrawal. "Even guys who want Americans to leave, they know it will be civil war if they do," says Ahmed al-Jobory, an unemployed chemical engineer working at Balad. What is emerging is a sense of psychological dependency. Even the new Iraqi Army, on which Washington is spending billions, is designed to be weak. The Army just received its first armor from the United States: light-skinned Humvees. But the Pentagon won't be giving up any tanks. "The goal is to have them equipped to fight a counterinsurgency, not to defend against external threats," says Lt. Col. Michael Negard, public-affairs officer for the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. (The military says it needs to help the Iraqi Army win the fight it's in now, not the battles of the future.)
U.S. officials routinely deny that America intends to put down permanent bases. "A key planning factor in our basing strategy is that there will be no bases in Iraq following Operation Iraqi Freedom," says Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for CENTCOM in Baghdad. "What we have in Iraq are 'contingency bases,' intended to support our operations in Iraq on a temporary basis until OIF is complete." But according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, roughly double what it plans to spend in Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates combined. Of that, the single biggest share is intended for Balad ($231 million).
Technically, Colonel Johnson may be telling the truth about the Pentagon's long-term plans. But it is also true that the U.S. government has never drawn up plans for "permanent" military bases, even when it ended up staying for half a century. In Korea, where tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers have been deployed for 55 years, since the end of the Korean War, "they're only just now moving American troops out of temporary facilities like huts to real buildings," says John Pike, a Washington security expert. A White House official, asked last week about long-term U.S. plans, himself made the analogy to Asia and to Germany. In every conflict the United States has recently been involved in, except Vietnam, U.S. forces have remained in the country, said the official, who asked for anonymity because the matter is considered sensitive.In fact, the plans for Balad fit in with Rumsfeld's larger designs for a dramatic reconfiguring of U.S. forces overseas. Big cold-war bases, with tens of thousands of permanently garrisoned troops, are on the way out. On the way in: giant "lily pads" for expeditionary U.S. forces to use only when needed, with ready equipment warehoused there. Balad, with its huge offramps and aprons, is a testing ground for that concept, according to several Pentagon officials. Major Morgan, for one, describes the deployment of Predators that are piloted from the United States as a "perfect example of being expeditionary."
One big question is whether a reduced but long-term U.S. presence in Iraq can be effective. Counterinsurgency experts say that sectarian conflict and insurgencies simply can't be fought from the air. And the Air Force officers at Balad say that, at long last, they're getting that message. The result is that, rather than dropping bombs, F-16s in Iraq today are doing police work from 15,000 feet, using brand-new advanced targeting pods, which can pick up activity on the ground day or night. Since January, says F-16 squadron commander Pete (Guns) Gersten, he has been feeding the info to his Army "brothers" rather than bombing the targets. "The Army said, 'Every time you blow stuff up, we get it back five times [in reprisals]'," he says. "So now we just do a lot of surveillance for the Army. They say it's time to start building. It's time to quit blowing things up."
But Gersten adds that, when it comes to preventing all-out civil war, control of the skies is crucial. "When I show up at a firefight, it stops," he says. "We're the big brother." Bristle-headed and lean in his tan flight suit, Gersten looks very much like a character out of "Top Gun." Is he a tad overconfident? Perhaps. But he fairly well sums up how Washington sees its role in Iraq today—and for a long time to come.
With John Barry and Mark Hosenball in Washington, Michael Hastings in New York and Scott Johnson in Baghdad
Well, do you suppose it might be about time the USA started to be more engaged in what happens in that part of the world? I know quite a bit of what is not being reported by our new media is tranforming parts of the Iraqi economy into what will be the envy of the Arab world.
Just look at the United States has done for agriculture in Iraq. Currently more than 60% of the food consumed by Iraqis is imported. Iraq is about the size of California and it has about 11 million hectares, or 27.1 million acres, of farmable land. Maybe about half of that is being cultivated now and there are 3 million irrigated hectares, or about 7.5 million acres. Iraq currently imports almost $3 billion in food commodities annually. USAID programs are helping expand production of wheat, the most costly component of the Public Distribution System food basket, to minimize food imports. Already, efforts on select Iraqi farms have doubled wheat production, from 0.8 metric tons per hectare (MT/ha) to between 1.5 and 2.0 MT/ha. Over 360 crop demonstrations nationwide have introduced farmers to improved production technologies for wheat, barley, rice, and maize. In 2004 alone, the USAID program imported 4,000 tons of certified wheat seed, greatly improving crops on over 30,000 hectares.
Livestock improvement programs benefit the poorest sectors of society. USAID is renovating 70 veterinary clinics and providing training across Iraq, benefiting over 180,000 breeders. Fertility treatments will increase water buffalo herds by 20 percent. USAID assisted farmers to expand domestic feed grain production to revitalize the domestic poultry industry, previously a major source of income.
Just look at the United States has done for agriculture in Iraq. Currently more than 60% of the food consumed by Iraqis is imported. Iraq is about the size of California and it has about 11 million hectares, or 27.1 million acres, of farmable land. Maybe about half of that is being cultivated now and there are 3 million irrigated hectares, or about 7.5 million acres. Iraq currently imports almost $3 billion in food commodities annually. USAID programs are helping expand production of wheat, the most costly component of the Public Distribution System food basket, to minimize food imports. Already, efforts on select Iraqi farms have doubled wheat production, from 0.8 metric tons per hectare (MT/ha) to between 1.5 and 2.0 MT/ha. Over 360 crop demonstrations nationwide have introduced farmers to improved production technologies for wheat, barley, rice, and maize. In 2004 alone, the USAID program imported 4,000 tons of certified wheat seed, greatly improving crops on over 30,000 hectares.
Livestock improvement programs benefit the poorest sectors of society. USAID is renovating 70 veterinary clinics and providing training across Iraq, benefiting over 180,000 breeders. Fertility treatments will increase water buffalo herds by 20 percent. USAID assisted farmers to expand domestic feed grain production to revitalize the domestic poultry industry, previously a major source of income.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Apr 24 2006, 04:46 AM)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12441799/site/newsweek/
Stuck in the Hot Zone
Don't dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
If you want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four "superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. Embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's "international zone" is "massive ... the largest embassy to date," says Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department's Overseas Building Operations office. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Williams called it the "most ambitious project" his office has undertaken in its history (see photo and caption above). Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal.
Life on the emerging Iraqi superbases is safer and easier than elsewhere in the country. Though soldiers and airmen at Balad jokingly call it "Mortaritaville," no one's been hit since January. And compared to the muddy, Porta Potti unpleasantness U.S. servicemen endure out at approximately 75 small "forward operating bases," Balad is shaping up to resemble a warrior's country club. A new rec hall is being built, and there is a 24/7 cybercafé, a premium coffee shop (Green Beans, known as the soldier's Starbucks worldwide), an indoor mini-golf course and a movie theater. There is an outdoor and an indoor pool left over from Uday Hussein's days training Iraqi Olympians here, but few remaining signs of the Hussein family, or indeed of anything Iraqi at all: to get to the big pool you head down Texas Avenue, around Victory Loop past David Letterman Boulevard and then down Balad's main drag, called Pennsylvania Avenue.
True, most Iraqis don't like the U.S. occupation today any better than they did a year ago, or two, or three. But with the exception of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, no major politician is calling for U.S. withdrawal. "Even guys who want Americans to leave, they know it will be civil war if they do," says Ahmed al-Jobory, an unemployed chemical engineer working at Balad. What is emerging is a sense of psychological dependency. Even the new Iraqi Army, on which Washington is spending billions, is designed to be weak. The Army just received its first armor from the United States: light-skinned Humvees. But the Pentagon won't be giving up any tanks. "The goal is to have them equipped to fight a counterinsurgency, not to defend against external threats," says Lt. Col. Michael Negard, public-affairs officer for the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. (The military says it needs to help the Iraqi Army win the fight it's in now, not the battles of the future.)
Stuck in the Hot Zone
Don't dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
If you want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four "superbases" where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. Embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's "international zone" is "massive ... the largest embassy to date," says Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department's Overseas Building Operations office. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Williams called it the "most ambitious project" his office has undertaken in its history (see photo and caption above). Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal.
Life on the emerging Iraqi superbases is safer and easier than elsewhere in the country. Though soldiers and airmen at Balad jokingly call it "Mortaritaville," no one's been hit since January. And compared to the muddy, Porta Potti unpleasantness U.S. servicemen endure out at approximately 75 small "forward operating bases," Balad is shaping up to resemble a warrior's country club. A new rec hall is being built, and there is a 24/7 cybercafé, a premium coffee shop (Green Beans, known as the soldier's Starbucks worldwide), an indoor mini-golf course and a movie theater. There is an outdoor and an indoor pool left over from Uday Hussein's days training Iraqi Olympians here, but few remaining signs of the Hussein family, or indeed of anything Iraqi at all: to get to the big pool you head down Texas Avenue, around Victory Loop past David Letterman Boulevard and then down Balad's main drag, called Pennsylvania Avenue.
True, most Iraqis don't like the U.S. occupation today any better than they did a year ago, or two, or three. But with the exception of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, no major politician is calling for U.S. withdrawal. "Even guys who want Americans to leave, they know it will be civil war if they do," says Ahmed al-Jobory, an unemployed chemical engineer working at Balad. What is emerging is a sense of psychological dependency. Even the new Iraqi Army, on which Washington is spending billions, is designed to be weak. The Army just received its first armor from the United States: light-skinned Humvees. But the Pentagon won't be giving up any tanks. "The goal is to have them equipped to fight a counterinsurgency, not to defend against external threats," says Lt. Col. Michael Negard, public-affairs officer for the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. (The military says it needs to help the Iraqi Army win the fight it's in now, not the battles of the future.)
This is what I feared. Chalmers Johnson in his book "Sorrows of Empire" described the cushy lifestyle of most of our forces in these "contingency bases." They're not just in Iraq, but all over the place. Maybe I should just accept that this is the way it's going to be - at least for my lifetime.
The military will simply starve the government so they can't spend money on anything else. Maybe I should get a job in the Defense Department - probably one of the only places with true job security. Even the Secretary of Defense can't get fired, despite the fact that it is almost universally accepted that he's doing a terrible job. But obviously, he's doing what Bush/Cheney want him to do. It's already been decided.
Meanwhile, people here receive second-rate educations, U.S. manufacturing jobs (jobs that created the middle class in this country) disappear, we remain dependent on foreign oil, we remain a debtor nation, we periodically get attacked by terrorists (as do the Israelis) and our politicians talk about issues like immigration, gay marriage and abortion.
And, because we cannot sustain our level of military engagement in the world and the spending to maintain it, we gradually, as with the British, the Soviet, the Roman and all other empires, fall from power.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.