Why Won’t Reporters Ask Bush about Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq?
Gary Hart wants to know why the White House Press Corps is avoiding an obvious question:
— Gary Hart
I have been pleading with the American press corps for months to ask the Bush administration one simple question, a question designed to expose our true agenda: “Are we, or are we not, constructing permanent military bases in Iraq?” Full stop.
Finally, this from Gen. John Abizaid, our senior military commander in Iraq: The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and to protect the flow of oil…
As we learned nothing from the French experience in Indochina, we have learned nothing from the 28-year British occupation of Iraq. Presumably, our remaining forces, say 50,000 to 75,000, will be garrisoned outside the chaotic urban areas where they will be used to keep Syria at bay, intimidate the Iranians, and protect the Saudis (and their/our oil). Problem is, garrisoned U.S. forces will be safe within their fortresses from suicide bombers but sitting targets for mortars and IEDs launched by primitive artillery.
Hasn’t this been the long-range plan all along? In the run-up remember hearing that we could use a conquered Iraq as a sort of aircraft carrier from which we could police the Middle East.


