Views > September 29, 2005

Permanent Occupation

By Rep. Barbara Lee

If you are inclined to believe the president, we will be in Iraq, in his words “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.” Members of the Bush administration, including the president, have been at pains to dispel any notion that they have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”

On February 17, 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, said, ”We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

The circumstances on the ground, however, tell another story. On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported on the construction of 14 “enduring bases” in Iraq. The May 22, 2005, Washington Post described the military’s plan to consolidate military personnel in Iraq into four massive “contingency operating bases.” According to the Congressional Research Service, Emergency Supplemental funds appropriated for military construction in Iraq for fiscal years 2001–2005 total more than $805 million, with the vast majority, more than $597 million, coming in the 2005 fiscal year.

Anyone familiar with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) should be skeptical about the administration’s claims that it does not have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq. PNAC, many of whose founders, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, went on to serve in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” It plainly cites the objective of an increased U.S. military presence in the region as a rationale for invading Iraq: “While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

In discussing the 14 “enduring bases” then under construction, Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq, raised the question, “Is this a swap for the Saudi bases? I don’t know,” he told the Chicago Tribune. “When we talk about enduring bases here, we’re talking about the present operation, not in terms of America’s global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense.”

No one disputes that many of the installations under construction are of a physically permanent character. The issue revolves around the policy question of whether Iraq will be under permanent U.S. military occupation.

That is why I introduced H. Con. Res. 197, which would make it “the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.”

This commonsense measure does two very important things. First, it explicitly states that the United States has no plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq and thus help to defuse the insurgency and improve the security situation on the ground.

Larry Diamond, former advisor to Paul Bremer, then head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is a Hoover fellow and author of Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq. He writes:

We know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to U.S. plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency.

Second, this bill allows those who have opposed this war from the outset to define one of the most critical components of an exit strategy—namely, that our troops actually exit. The Bush administration’s unwillingness to acknowledge their intentions in Iraq, coupled with the growing disapproval of their handling of the war and the increasing public support for withdrawing our troops, offer an immediate opportunity to define this debate.

Members of Congress disagree about when, and under what circumstances, our troops should be brought home, but you are not likely to find any member of Congress who would dare to publicly come out in support of staying in Iraq permanently.

It is a question that supporters of the president should be forced to answer. If they don’t support being in Iraq permanently, they should co-sponsor my bill, and put themselves on record. It is that simple.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  It should never have been stated that we will make Iraq into a democracy. George W’s father once announced, “I don’t have the vision thing.” I suspect W’s vision is programmable. While turning a totalitarian country into a free and democratic one is a laudable goal, this test is being run in the wrong test tube.

  The War on Terror is not a matter of establishing the “right form of government” and not a simple Christian/Muslim conflict.

  The radical Muslims don’t see nations which include religious categories — they see a religion which includes national categories.

  Our problem is not Iraqis, Iranians, etc. It is only the extreme fundamentalist Muslims who see capitalism as decadent and a threat to their way of life. They don’t differentiate between Christians, Jews and Muslims. For them it is between their form of Islam and everyone else.

  Just as the Bosnian centuries old hatreds between Serbs and Croats was stifled under Tito and then resurfaced, Saddam’s regime kept atrocities as their own turf. Now old scores have been freed to be settled.

  The problems in these two areas are similar and if the west pulls out of either the strongest will slaughter the weak.

  You could say we are say we are caught between Iraq and a hard place. (Sorry about that.)

  Posted by whattheheck on Sep 29, 2005 at 8:44 AM

  Bush : “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.”

  The cynic in me says he means until all the oil is pumped out. Or until the next world war is over. Or maybe it will always be necessary.

  Rumsfeld : ”We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

  The cynic in me says he means the permanent bases will be in Kurdistan or Shiastan (any guesses on what they will call the southern region?) protecting the oil, after the civil war and partitioning of the country. Or maybe when the sock puppet government in Iraq asks for the permanent bases because their American masters tell them to.

  Posted by David in Canada on Sep 29, 2005 at 5:50 PM

  Hi WTH, Rabbit likes the first part of what you are saying a lot. Was feeling warm in the toes, but then we get a little wobbly, and Rabbit would respectfully like to show why he thinks this.

  “The radical Muslims don’t see nations which include religious categories — they see a religion which includes national categories”

  ...
  The Radical Americans don’t see Nations which include religious and political categories - they see a Nation which represents a Religious category. .......If that comparison does not stop you in your tracks WTH, back up and examine the legitimacy of our separate statements.  Radical Muslims who may have been involved in certain Terrorist Attacks on our countries do not represent the countries from which they spring any more than Robertson represents America. Yet just as Radical Muslim Clerics represent the feelings of “some” albeit a small minority of those countries people, so does Robertson represent the feelings of some of America.  Should America be attacked for not arresting Robertson and handing him over to countries who are even now demanding he be brought to account for breaking the very laws authored by the USA?
  ..
  Come on WTH Rabbit knows you are not a Scorp, a Wolf or a Jay Cline. Just take the time to look at these guys, arguing essentially the same things as you when it comes to Muslims, Iraq, 911 and the WOT. You are the only one who is capable of rising above the mindset you have inherited. Respectfully WTH check out how these guys stack up, and ask yourself does my argument differ in any meaningful way from Jay Cline’s for example.
  ...
  Again if you are thoughtful as well as reasonable, you may find the comparison an eye opener, please do. We need you to see past the small hurdle of misunderstanding which has been generated via a wholly compliant media and blatant thuggish politics.  You know the MSM is worse than useless for reporting the truth, don’t you? You have seen how they treat this Emperor who has no clothes? Even yet the worst they can manage to say is that his clothes are not liking as fine as they once did. He has no clothes and you are seeing it, so what else is that wholly whored media withholding or just plain lying about?
  ...
  You have the facilities to see, use them WTH, please.

  When you say:
  .
  “Our problem is not Iraqis, Iranians, etc. It is only the extreme fundamentalist Muslims who see capitalism as decadent and a threat to their way of life”
  .......................You are only saying the truth. But why then are we attacking entire countries who were anathema to Extreme Fundamenatlists. Especially when the end result is and was always predicted to be an enormous upsurge in Fundamnetalsit thinking?
  ....
  Is there any sense to this WTH?
  ..
  What The Heck are you doing arguing in favour of a completely untenable position?
  ..
  Rabbit says >>>>>>>>>>>>.....STOP......LOOK.......LISTEN N..........

  Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 29, 2005 at 9:49 PM

  BTW Jay is at the God Squad, and Wolf at Dialogue. Check them out and see if you want to keep sharing opinions with these guys. Never mind that you can express yourself more clearly and have a better explanation as to how the dots join, are your opinions on some things any more substantial than theirs?
  ..
  It is a VERY good question, WTH.
  ..
  If Rabbit saw the man with the exterminators Van coming he would look to his nearest companions just to ensure they were not all Rats, we don’t look that much different to the exterminator, and it might not be a good idea to be in this spot after all. Embarrassing at the least................................^^..........................

  Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 29, 2005 at 9:58 PM

  “You could say we are say we are caught between Iraq and a hard place.”
  ......
  The pun is fun and forgiven, but the Hard place is one of own making still.

  Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 2:19 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 75 posts.

Member Login

Also by Rep. Barbara Lee

• Permanent Occupation
  
• Transparency Now