Now
Available from
CounterPunch for Only $11.50 (S/H Included)
Today's
Stories
January 6, 2004
David Price
"Like
Slaves": Anthropological Notes on Occupation
January 5, 2004
Al Krebs
How
Now Mad Cow!
Kathy Kelly
Squatting
in Baghdad's Bomb Craters
Jordy Cummings
The Dialectic of the Kristol Family: Putting the Neo in the Cons
Fran Shor
Mad Human Disease: Chewing the Fat Down on the Farm
Fidel Castro
"We Shall Overcome": On the 45th Anniversary of the
Cuban Revolution
Gary Leupp
North
Korea for Dummies
January 3 / 4, 2004
Brian Cloughley
Never
Mind the WMDs, Just Look at History
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan
The Wrong War at the Wrong Time
William Cook
Failing to Respond to 9/11
Glen Martin
Jesus
vs. the Beast of the Apocalypse
Robert Fisk
Iraqi Humor Amid the Carnage
Ilan Pappe
The Geneva Bubble
Walter Davis
Robert Jay Lifton, or Nostalgia
Kurt Nimmo
Ashcroft vs. the Left
Mike Whitney
The Padilla Case
Steven Sherman
On Wallerstein's The Decline of American Power
Dave Lindorff
Bush's Taiwan Hypocrisy
William Blum
Codework Orange!
Mitchel Cohen
Learning from Che Guevara
Seth Sandronsky
Mad Cow and Main Street USA
Bruce Jackson
Conversations with Leslie Fiedler
Standard Schaefer
Poet Carl Rakosi Turns 100
Ron Jacobs
Sir Mick
Adam Engel
Hall of Hoaxes
Poets' Basement
Jones, Albert & Curtis
January 2, 2004
Stan Cox
Red Alert
2016
Dave Lindorff
Beef, the Meat of Republicans
Jackie Corr
Rule and Ruin: Wall Street and Montana
Norman Solomon
George Will's Ethics: None of Our Business?
David Vest
As the Top Wobbleth
January 1, 2004
Randall Robinson
Honor
Haiti, Honor Ourselves
David Krieger
Looking
Back on 2003
Robert Fisk
War Takes an Inhuman Twist: Roadkill Bombs
Stan Goff
War,
Race and Elections
Hammond Guthrie
2003 Almaniac
Website of the Day
Embody Bags
December 31, 2003
Ray McGovern
Don't
Be Fooled Again: This Isn't an Independent Investigation
Kurt Nimmo
Manufacturing Hysteria
Robert Fisk
The Occupation is Damned
Mike Whitney
Mad Cows and Downer George
Alexander Cockburn
A Great Year Ebbed, Another Ahead
December 30, 2003
Michael Neumann
Criticism
of Israel is Not Anti-Semitism
Annie Higgins
When
They Bombed the Hometown of the Virgin Mary
Alan Farago
Bush Bros. Wrecking Co.: Time Runs Out for the Everglades
Dan Bacher
Creatures from the Blacklight Lagoon: From Glofish to Frankenfish
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hard
Time on the Killing Floor: Inside Big Meat
Willie Nelson
Whatever Happened to Peace on Earth?
December 29, 2003
Mark Hand
The Washington
Post in the Dock?
David Lindorff
The
Bush Election Strategy
Phillip Cryan
Interested Blindness: Media Omissions in Colombia's War
Richard Trainor
Catellus Development: the Next Octopus?
Uri Avnery
Israel's
Conscientious Objectors
December 27 / 28, 2003
Alexander Cockburn
A
Journey Into Rupert Murdoch's Soul
Kathy Kelly
Christmas Day in Baghdad: A Better World
Saul Landau
Iraq
at the End of the Year
Dave Zirin
A Linebacker for Peace & Justice: an Interview with David
Meggysey
Robert Fisk
Iraq
Through the American Looking Glass
Scott Burchill
The Bad Guys We Once Thought Good: Where Are They Now?
Chris Floyd
Bush's Iraq Plan is Right on Course: Saddam 2.0
Brian J. Foley
Don't Tread on Me: Act Now to Save the Constitution
Seth Sandronsky
Feedlot Sweatshops: Mad Cows and the Market
Susan Davis
Lord
of the (Cash Register) Rings
Ron Jacobs
Cratched Does California
Adam Engel
Crumblecake and Fish
Norman Solomon
The Unpardonable Lenny Bruce
Poets' Basement
Cullen and Albert
Website of the Weekend
Activism Through Music
December 26, 2003
Gary Leupp
Bush
Doings: Doing the Language
December 25, 2003
Diane Christian
The
Christmas Story
Elaine Cassel
This
Christmas, the World is Too Much With Us
Susan Davis
Jinglebells, Hold the Schlock
Kristen Ess
Bethlehem Celebrates Christmas, While Rafah Counts the Dead
Francis Boyle
Oh Little Town of Bethlehem
Alexander Cockburn
The
Magnificient 9
Guthrie / Albert
Another Colorful Season
December 24, 2003
M. Shahid Alam
The Semantics
of Empire
William S. Lind
Marley's
List for Santa in Wartime
Josh Frank
Iraqi
Oil: First Come, First Serve
Cpt. Paul Watson
The
Mad Cowboy Was Right
Robert Lopez
Nuance
and Innuendo in the War on Iraq
December 23, 2003
Brian J. Foley
Duck
and Cover-up
Will Youmans
Sharon's
Ultimatum
Michael Donnelly
Here
They Come Again: Another Big Green Fiasco
Uri Avnery
Sharon's
Speech: the Decoded Version
December 22, 2003
Jeffrey St. Clair
Pray
to Play: Bush's Faith-Based National Parks
Patrick Gavin
What Would Lincoln Do?
Marjorie Cohn
How to
Try Saddam: Searching for a Just Venue
Kathy Kelly
The
Two Troublemakers: "Guilty of Being Palestinians in Iraq"
December 20 / 21, 2003
Alexander Cockburn
How
to Kill Saddam
Saul Landau
Bush Tries Farce as Cuba Policy
Rafael Hernandez
Empire and Resistance: an Interview with Tariq Ali
David Vest
Our Ass and Saddam's Hole
Kurt Nimmo
Bush
Gets Serious About Killing Iraqis
Greg Weiher
Lessons from the Israeli School on How to Win Friends in the
Islamic World
Christopher Brauchli
Arrest, Smear, Slink Away: Dr. Lee and Cpt. Yee
Carol Norris
Cheers of a Clown: Saddam and the Gloating Bush
Bruce Jackson
The Nameless and the Detained: Bush's Disappeared
Juliana Fredman
A Sealed Laboratory of Repression
Mickey Z.
Holiday Spirit at the UN
Ron Jacobs
In the Wake of Rebellion: The Prisoner's Rights Movement and
Latino Prisoners
Josh Frank
Sen. Max Baucus: the Slick Swindler
John L. Hess
Slow Train to the Plane
Adam Engel
Black is Indeed Beautiful
Ben Tripp
The Relevance of Art in Times of Crisis
Michael Neumann
Rhythm and Race
Poets' Basement
Cullen, Engel, Albert & Guthrie
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
January
6, 2004
Permanent Bases
Leave
Iraq? Hell No, We Won't Go!
By DOUG GIEBEL
Well, if you're going to war, obviously
troops are going to a theater and to a country and in the immediate
aftermath of such a conflict, there would have to be a need for
some presence until such time as you can put in place a better
system. I mean, the United States has done this many times in
the course of the last 50 or 60 years and we always try to get
out as quickly as we can once we have reestablished peace, put
in place a stable system, it is never our intention to go and
stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our
military forces.
--Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed
on NPR's "All Things Considered," October 11, 2002.
Those guiding Bush/neo-conservative foreign policy
intend to establish a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq.
This little-noted aim, not "oil," is the real "elephant"
in the American voter's living room. (The issue of appropriating
Iraqi oil and oil revenue will be dealt with after the "coalition"
take-over to set up bases on Iraqi soil.) Secretary Powell's
disingenuous comment on NPR (above) failed to note that in the
past 50 or 60 years the United States still maintains a military
presence in many countries long past "the immediate aftermath"
of conflict. The currently-infamous U.S. installation at Guantanamo
Bay dates back to 1901. A hundred-year stay in Iraq would not
be anything new. How many bases? At what financial cost? At what
continued (possibly never-ending) cost to human beings wounded
or killed?
On April 20, 2003, The New York Times
ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military
was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq.
The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story
as "inaccurate and unfortunate." But what did Rumsfeld
mean by "inaccurate"? Perhaps it was "unfortunate"
for the administration when the basing plan was leaked to the
press. Perhaps the plan was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon
or White House. The national media dropped the story after Rumsfeld's
disclaimer.
Was the story "inaccurate"
because instead of four military installations, the government
has plans for six bases, as reported on November 19, 2003, by
the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm:
The sources revealed the names of these
bases and the planned positions for permanent deployment. They
are:
. Al-Habbaniyah Airbase [already an RAF
airbase for much of the last century] near the city of al-Fallujah,
65km west of Baghdad;
. Ash-Sha'biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km
south of Baghdad;
. 'Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts
of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad;
. al-Walid Airbase about 330km north
west of Baghdad;
. al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul,
400km north of Baghdad;
. A permanent deployment of forces in
the east of Iraq in what is known as the Hamrin mountain range
that extends from Diyala Provice, 60km east of Baghdad, and borders
on Iran and extends to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 260km north
of Baghdad.
The sources explained the choice of these
locations for permanent Anglo-American deployment by saying that
they cover most of the territory of Iraq, and are linked to the
Iraqi borders in all four directions, giving them strategic importance
in defining the future course of the "new" Iraq. The
choice of these locations is also linked to the aim of deterring
neighbors of Iraq who might attempt to threaten Iraqi territory
in the future.
Given the present administration's abysmal
track record for truth-telling, we may never know substantive
information about this crucial issue until the bases are operational.
How long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq?
Here are a few selected responses to that vital question.
1. On November 20, 1997, long before
the current occupation by "coalition" forces, Clinton's
Defense Secretary William Cohen said that U.S. forces then in
the region of Iraq "will stay as long as it's necessary
for them to be there."
2. Cohen's prophetic words have been
repeatedly echoed by the Bush Administration, as when Secretary
of State Powell said, "How long will we stay in Iraq? We
will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for
governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi
administration." (September 19, 2003)
3. President George W. Bush: (a) The
Washington Post reported, "Before the war, Bush spoke optimistically
about a clean transformation of Iraq, arguing that U.S. troops
would not remain in the region "for one day longer than
is necessary." (b) Bush statement: "These groups believe
they have found an opportunity to harm America, to shake our
resolve in the war on terror and to cause us to leave Iraq before
freedom is fully established. They are wrong and they will not
succeed." (July 1, 2003) (c) Bush statement: "We will
stay as long as necessary to make sure that the Iraqi people
have a government of, by and for the Iraqi people. And then we'll
come home." (May 13, 2003) (d) Bush statement: "I assured
[Iraqi women leaders] that America wasn't leaving. When they
hear me say we're staying, that means we're staying. (November
17, 2003)
4. On July 1, 2003, Presidential Press
Secretary Ari Fleischer said the United States "does not
have any intention of staying in Iraq forever, but the president
has said that we will stay as long as is necessary to get the
job done and done well and done right, and not a day longer.
And that's what you're seeing."
5. On November 17, 2003, reporter Russell
Mokhiber asked Fleischer's replacement Scott McClellan the following:
"Ambassador (Paul) Bremer said yesterday that U.S. troops
will remain on the ground in Iraq even after the government is
elected there. What if the (Iraqi) government asks the U.S. to
get out. Would we get out?" McClellan ducked the question
with this baroque response: "The Iraqi people have indicated
in a number of different ways, if you look at polls, if you look
at the governing council representatives, that they want us to
say until the job is finished. And part of that job is making
sure that we have a secure environment for the Iraqi people.
And we still have important obligations that will need to be
fulfilled. That includes the security side, that includes the
reconstruction side. There are an enormous amount of resources
going into Iraq from the international community. All of us have
a stake in seeing a peaceful and free Iraq come about. It is
important to transforming the Middle East. The Middle East has
been a volatile region. It has been a breeding ground for terrorism,
and bringing about a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq in the heart
of the Middle East will help transform that region for the better,
bring about a safer and better world."
6. How long in Iraq? General Richard
Myers said: "It's going to depend on events over the next
couple of years. It's to be determined." (December 16, 2003)
7. "The United States is committed
to stay as long as is necessary in Iraq, but not one day more."
-- Marc Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs,
February 11, 2003.
8. Reporting for the Voice of America,
Meredith Buel noted, "While analysts disagree over how long
American soldiers should stay in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld says they will be there as long as is necessary, but
not one day longer. U.S. defense officials have been careful
not to estimate the length of the occupation, just as they refused
to estimate how long the war itself would last." (June 13,
2003)
9. During a September 30, 2003, visit
to Washington, D.C., Ahmad Chalabi, interim head of Iraq's governing
council, told reporters he would like the United States to establish
permanent military bases in Iraq.
10. Even some Democrats see a long-lived
U.S. presence in Iraq. In July 2003, Sen. Joseph Biden, ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, told Fox News
the U.S. would be Iraq for a decade. "[I]t's unrealistic
to think we're not going to be required to be there, in transition,
even once there's an Iraqi government, for a long time with a
lot of forces." Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who
opposed the war from the beginning, told Washington Post columnist
Fred Hiatt, "Now that we're there, we're stuck . . . bringing
democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition." (August
25, 2003)
11. On her return from a Thanksgiving
trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton responded
to the "how long" question on ABC's This Week with
a reminder that the U.S. still has bases in Korea and elsewhere,
long after wars have ended.
12. June 2003: British Prime Minister
Tony Blair was questioned by members of Parliament. How long
would British troops remain in Iraq? Was there an exit strategy?
Blair artfully avoided answering such questions. He did say,
"Even at this moment in time, it is particularly important
that we make sure that we redouble our efforts to bring stability
to that country because that is the surest way of bringing stability
to the rest of the world," a statement of incredibly overblown
exaggeration. (Emphasis added.) Will stabilizing Iraq really
bring "stability to the rest of the world"? Blair's
claim must join the other hyped misstatements of fact such as
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capabilities.
(In John le Carre's latest novel "Absolute Friends,"
a character says "I used to believe that I was right to
lie for my country, and now I don't know what the truth is.")
13. January 5, 2004: In London, Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw said British forces would likely remain
in the country for years to come. He said he could not give an
``exact timescale'' for their withdrawal but added ``it is not
going to be months. ... I can't say whether it is going to be
2006, 2007.'' (Associated Press) Political leaders "can't
say" when the foreign troops will leave Iraq. If they told
the public of their actual plans, the public might strenuously
object. In 2006 or 2007, we may expect to hear, "I can't
say whether it is going to be 2008, 2009, 2010."
14. January 4, 2004: Defense experts
Charles Knight and Marcus Corbin published a most important analysis
deserving major national exposure. They wrote in part:
A four- or five-year occupation of Iraq
by 65,000 regular and 35,000 reserve troops - a realistic possibility
- will require a rotation base of 260,000 active troops . . .
and 315,000 reserve troops . . . This illustration does not properly
capture the full effect of our broader "war on terror"
on our reservists. . . If another war begins, President Bush
will still be able to mobilize plenty of military power. It is
occupations that are the problem. If occupation of Iraq stretches
into years and the "war on terrorism" widens even further,
Army Reserve and National Guard units will be called to active
service again and again - an activation rate far higher than
the norm expected by our citizen soldiers, their families and
their communities.
Although polls have shown the U.S. public
generally supports the occupation of Iraq, it's not clear that
questions regarding a "permanent" presence have been
asked of respondents. One thing for sure: if Bush Republicans
(and some Democrats) prevail, the children of our grandchildren
will be serving in Iraq long after the current crop of politicians
and corporate leaders with their fingers in the power-and-money
pie have left the scene. Is this what Americans really want?
Speaking for the Bush Administration,
Scott McClellan's words above regarding a desire to transform
the Middle East deserve much more attention than they've been
given. Far too little attention was paid when NPR's Robert Siegel
elicited from Colin Powell the incredible statement that begins
this article. The United States currently has bases in such nations
as Afghanistan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria (coming soon), Cuba,
Diego Garcia, Djibouti, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Iceland,
Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Puerto Rico,
Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
Contrary to Secretary Powell's laughable assertion, once a U.S.
base is based, it becomes quite permanent. Rather than try to
"get [U.S. bases] out," we spend enormous effort maintaining
the majority of our military installations. And this brings us
to the problem of Iraq.
The Bush Administration may intend to
move most of its Middle East installations to Iraq from the countries
where they're now situated. The hope is for U.S. control of Iraq's
new-found "democracy" in service of a grandiose mission:
"transforming the Middle East." Eventually Iraqi oil
revenues will be appropriated to pick up some of the ever-expanding
tab. One might sensibly ask, "Why not transform the United
States instead?"-except that the mad dash to occupy Iraq
(and by extension, tomorrow, the world) is already remaking this
nation in the crippling neo-conservative image.
Should this greedy nightmare scenario
of a permanent U.S. bootprint in Iraq unreel, many more "coalition"
personnel will be wounded or killed, as will uncounted numbers
of Iraqis and others. The fortunate insider corporations currently
privatizing our military operations will reap financial benefits
far beyond those now under scrutiny. It is scandalous that politicians
who oppose the permanent occupation of Iraq have not brought
this situation front and center to provoke a national debate.
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich
is one of the few willing to broach the subject. His words are
worth noting:
"If this occupation is allowed to
continue for years, as the President and other Democratic presidential
candidates want, we are bound to see a more formal draft. And
with three of the Democratic presidential candidates favoring
mandatory draft registration for 18-year-old women, even families
without sons could be in for a huge surprise." (12/31/03)
The United States intends to stay in
Iraq. Recall the words of President Bush: "When they hear
me say we're staying, that means we're staying." Troops
will not be coming home. It is time to ask members of Congress
about this plot to further deplete both the national treasury
and the ranks of dedicated human beings willing to serve their
country. And what of the devoted aid workers sans multi-billion
dollar contracts? What about the people of Iraq? How many will
die to foster this experimental takeover-makeover? We can't expect
straight answers from proponents of the plan. If the Ozymandias-driven
neo-conservative dream of world domination is to be halted by
the upcoming election, this is the issue that could make a difference.
Doug Giebel
lives in Big Sandy, Montana. He can be reached at: dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net
Weekend
Edition Features for January 3 / 4, 2004
Brian Cloughley
Never
Mind the WMDs, Just Look at History
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan
The Wrong War at the Wrong Time
William Cook
Failing to Respond to 9/11
Glen Martin
Jesus
vs. the Beast of the Apocalypse
Robert Fisk
Iraqi Humor Amid the Carnage
Ilan Pappe
The Geneva Bubble
Walter Davis
Robert Jay Lifton, or Nostalgia
Kurt Nimmo
Ashcroft vs. the Left
Mike Whitney
The Padilla Case
Steven Sherman
On Wallerstein's The Decline of American Power
Dave Lindorff
Bush's Taiwan Hypocrisy
William Blum
Codework Orange!
Mitchel Cohen
Learning from Che Guevara
Seth Sandronsky
Mad Cow and Main Street USA
Bruce Jackson
Conversations with Leslie Fiedler
Standard Schaefer
Poet Carl Rakosi Turns 100
Ron Jacobs
Sir Mick
Adam Engel
Hall of Hoaxes
Poets' Basement
Jones, Albert & Curtis
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|