Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Base Politics

A bill that would ban permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last Wednesday. . But...

Print Friendly

A bill that would ban permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last Wednesday.

But many analysts in both the pro- and anti-war camps regard the bill as a primarily symbolic measure that will have little impact on the U.S. government’s practical ability to maintain military installations in Iraq.

The bill comes in the context of growing speculation about a "Korea-style" resolution to the war that would leave U.S. troops in Iraq for years or even decades to come.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the bill, which passed by a decisive 399-24 margin. In addition to barring the use of congressional funding for permanent bases, it also barred the use of funding "to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq."

Despite the fact that most congressional Republicans voted for the bill, Republican legislators quickly dismissed it as meaningless. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called the measure "a cheap political stunt that does not affect the Pentagon’s ability to [set up] bases anywhere in the world."

Opponents of the war, as well as supporters, have seconded King’s criticism. One flaw with the bill, many say, is that the United States does not consider any of its military bases anywhere in the world to be "permanent." The United States would therefore be able to get around the legislation and establish bases in Iraq, even for the long term, while maintaining that the installations are only temporary.

The bill "prohibits only those bases which are acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing troops in Iraq," said Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies. "Therefore any base constructed for temporarily stationing troops, or rotating troops, or anything less than an officially permanent deployment, would still be accepted."

Supporters of the bill argue that it is still a step forward, even if it does not definitively resolve the issue of long-term bases.

"We recognize that the legislation won’t by itself stop permanent bases in Iraq," said Jim Cason of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, an organization that supported the bill. "We rather see it as another step in the process of challenging the Bush administration’s proposals to establish a long-term presence in Iraq."

Congressional Democrats argued that the legislation is useful, even on a purely symbolic level, as a way to reassure Iraqis of U.S. good intentions. Representative Lee, who introduced the bill, stated that "the perception that the United States plans a permanent military presence in Iraq strengthens the insurgency and fuels the violence against our troops."

The bill also played into the Democrats’ stated goal of forcing Republicans to vote on record about the war on a regular basis.

The issue of permanent bases in Iraq has been a contentious issue since the initial U.S. invasion in 2003. In April 2003, military officials told the New York Times that the United States planned to maintain at least four major bases in Iraq after the end of the war.

These claims were denied within days by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who called reports that the United States planned a long-term military presence after the war "flat false." Since then, administration officials have always publicly denied any intent to establish permanent bases.

Recent months, however, have seen growing talk of a Korea-style scenario that would keep some U.S. troops in Iraq for an extended period of time, perhaps even decades. In a May 2007 press briefing, White House spokesman Tony Snow spoke of the possibility of an "over-the-horizon support role … as we have in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability."

U.S. troops have now been stationed in South Korea for over 50 years.

The bill on permanent bases came as Congress prepared for further debate on troop withdrawals. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a leading war opponent, stated last Wednesday that he would attempt to attach a new plan for troop withdrawals to the annual military spending bill.

Murtha indicated that he expected the primary debate over withdrawal to occur in September, when Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker will report on conditions in Iraq.

"When you get to September, this is history, this is when we are going to have a real confrontation with the president," Murtha said. "I see signals that things are going to get worked out."

Daniel Luban writes for the Inter Press Service.

 

Citations

Daniel Luban, "Base Politics," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, July 31, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share