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...

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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share