US Wants 58 Bases In Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say

McClatchy reports the U.S. is demanding 58 military bases in Iraq as part of a "status of forces" agreement that would allow American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:

Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

The proposed "status of forces" agreement could lead to an uprising in Iraq, according to a leading Iraqi cleric:

A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in Iraq.

"It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi told the Iranian state-run English-language service, Press TV.

Modarresi said the strategic framework between Iraq and the United States needs a full understanding of the situation in Iraq before negotiations on the arrangement proceed. "It will surely fail if kept as it is," he said.

Comments

[TimothyChase]

There are a large number of in-depth articles on the "enduring bases" here spread out over several years:

Permanent Bases - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/permindex.htm

Another article worth checking:

Iraq's US/UK Permanent Bases : Intentional Obfuscation
by Sarah Meyer
Global Research, April 11, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060411&articleId=2257

This has been going on for a while -- and the size defies comprehension. The new US embassy is larger than the Vatican City. This administration means to have a permanent presence with which to project US power throughout the Middle East. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and at the price of bankrupting the United States.

[Gary47]

Damned if they didn't have any WMD. Well then, we better build ourselves a boat load of military bases. That'll teach 'em.

[TimothyChase]

Already largely built. And the new US Embassy is larger than Vatican City.

This has been going on for quite a while.

Here are about two dozen articles on this...

Permanent Bases - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/permindex.htm

There may be more in the archive.

[MissingAmerica]

It's a shame that Iraq doesn't like us. After all, we've been occupying them long enough they should be used to us by now. Could it possibly be that we're proving a bigger danger to them than they are to each other? Let's see, introduce Bush democracy into a radical sectarian theocracy. Yup, spells "danger" to me.

[pahpah25]

HMMMMM WHATS NEXT...........ZIONIST ISRAELI 'SETTLEMENTS IN IRAQ?

[lornejl]

After all we have done for them, that is the least they can do.

[dhinds]

Over 500.000 Iraqis (mostly civilians) dead, the nation's infrastructure destroyed, sectarian violence greatly increased, insecurity much worse than it was before the invasion; and you are saying they have a lot to be thank us for?

[Tulka2]

I feel an ulcer coming on. Instead of pounding billions of dollars into a hole in Iraq's sand...? Why did we not think to borrow Chinese money so as to build a trans-continental super fast train system? You know why? Because the "right people" are making money today. I want names. I am keeping a list and knitting them into lace.

[synapse369]

Better yet - knit them into a shroud for the Bush administration.

[Krikkit]

Thank God these warmongers only have a few more months to try to pull their dirty tricks.

[gakabani]

Bush and cabal are now the new owners of Iraq. We Americans are useless in having a government that really represents us. So now, Bush is the new Saddam Hussein of Iraq and you will see the ME becoming a powder cake thanks to our stupidity and ignorance.

Go ahead America! Let us elect this maniac of McCain and let us finish it for all. We elect presidents thinking it is a democracy. IT IS NOT. Just because we vote does not imply we are living in a democratic state. THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. WE are a fascist state.

[Crowhaul]

One of al Qaeda's stated reasons for the 9/11 attack was the presence of permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia.

And here we are trying to do the same in Iraq.

Yet another good reason for immediate impeachment. If you haven't yet read yesterday's charges against Bush, you can read them here:

http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

[Economike]

The fact that Bushco is trying to push this through without Congressional authorization should give Congress and the next President reason to ignore the treaty after the next election on the grounds that it is invalid. Unless we get McCain, then it's time to move somewhere where they pay in Euros.

[Garvagh]

Important story! I recommend the June 2008 issue of Mother Jones for an excellent article on how the Bush administration is trying to do and end-run around the Constitution, to achieve a treaty with Iraq without ratification by the Senate.

Most Iraqis, and most Iraqi MPs, want the US to leave Iraq. The hidden agenda for the Iraq war always included obtaining permanent airbases for use by Israeli fighters for refueling in any attack on Iran. The US has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort to facilitate a potential Israeli attack on Iran. Would it not make more sense to tell Israel the illegal colonies in the West Bank have to go, and the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights needs to be terminated?

[richardgordon]

I don't know what the US is going to do but they have landed themselves in a mighty difficult situation with Iraq.

Its all about Oil. After spending well over a trillion dollars and sacrificing over 4000 lives America wants assured access to Iraq's oil. Can you imagine how pissed off the American public will be if 5 years down the road an independent Iraq decides to sell its oil to China or India instead of the United States? These proposed bases in Iraq are more about access to Iraq's oil and markets than anything else. But, its no secret that the Arabs want American Forces out of Iraq. But of course if that happens then Iraq could descend into wholesale civil war and America will completely lose control over a region it has sacrificed so much.

No matter who wins the Presidential race, Obama or McCain, there are going to be some virtually impossible decisions to make: cut and run and possibly lose access to Iraqs oil or leave troops behind to control a region that is virtually impossible to manage. This is George Bush's legacy.

[Economike]

We need to go coooold turkey on oil. But Bush says no, no, no, no

[Krikkit]

There's an alternative to your scenario. An organized and well-planned withdrawal of troops can take place along side diplomatic efforts on the ground. By diplomatic efforts, I'm not talking about the State Deparment officials talking to Iraqi officials. I'm talking about conflict management efforts that are ongoing in Iraq and spearheaded by an NGO under the State Department, the United States Institute of Peace. They are talking to local leaders and training as many Iraqis as they can to undertake their own peace negotiations. USIP is showing them how and putting tools (not weapons) in their hands.

As soon as the US starts withdrawing troops 2 things will happen. Some groups will try to make a power grab. Tensions in general will begin to ease and more people will be interested in taking part in their own peacemaking. It will be rough at first to balance between these, but there will still be troops on the ground if things get really dicey. Overall, though, I think if we get our troops out of the way, Iraqis have the capability of providing their own stability.

[dhinds]

A non-governmental organization (NGO) created within the State Dept., that provides the "tools" for Iraqi sects that have been at war with each other for generations to make peace; a sovereign Iraq created using our model and based on our assumptions?

Doesn't sound too promising.

Is the rest of the world expected to provide resources we ourselves had but squandered, just because the Commander and Chief thought he could get away with it?

It's not going to happen.

[undecidee]

First of all, I really appreciate those constitutional lawyers working in the executive branch of our government. When comedians talk about lawyers, they were thinking of them. They can twist the constitution to fit their own agenda. Bush regime is to be applauded for having some of the best scum
bag in the business.

Secondly, I also appreciate the Iraqi parliament for saying no to the permanent occupancy of Iraq by a foreign government who is just dying to get into a fight with Iran. We all know that and I am grateful that they care for their country so much that they are willing to say no to their occupiers who could kill them all if they so wish.

Thirdly, I think that the world and especially the US public would appreciate it if Iraqis tell the world that the war in Iraq has been WON! That way, we will be able to leave that country with our face intact. Many GOPigs are reluctant to leave Iraq because the war has not been won. They need to be told that the war is over and we won. Bring our troops home now.

[NoMercy]

Saddam ruled Iraq for 24 years ('79-'03). For the first 11 of those years, he had America's fullsome support, as did his bitter enemy Iran. America, yes, played off both of these powers against each other, in order to keep the oil flowing. When Saddam got his detente with Iran, he started acting up as if he were an independent power.

Unfortunately Bush I lost to Bill Clinton, who interrupted the New World Order plans. The PNAC people knew their time was short (at least 4 years, at most 8) when Bush II miraculously won, which explains the breathless pace of the first Bush term. It is still about the NWO, but unfortunately American voters weren't given *all* the information.

American could have ruled the world for a new American century, but as the PNAC recognized, with the rise of the East, time was of the essence.

[undecidee]

The Bush family have been neo nazis colaborators for years. Since WWII I believe so it is not surprising that they have come up with another New World Order that is similar to Hitler's.

Infact, Dubya have mentioned Hitler a few times now. I think that he is like McCellan, in that he wants to be caught. McCellan have said that the media did not ask the right question. Well, there is Dubya waiting for the MSM to push him on Hitler and the NWO but they either don't want to know about it or they are really scared to ask him for more information.

Didn't Hillary attended those NWO meetings on behalf of her husband while he was in office? Nobody ask her about it either. She is in it too.

I think that Obama is out of the loop since he is new to the scene which is why she needed to win the nomination. Obamacans messed up their plans.

[neoliberalNYC]

This request is being misrepresented by the Iraqi lawmakers being quoted and it is still being hashed out in a negotiation.
There are currently 54 Iraq Army Brigades..the Iraqi AirForce barely exists. Each of those Iraqi Army Brigades would like to have the ability to call in Air Support if necessary. The Iraqi Army also has no artillery..each of those Iraqi Army Brigades would like the option to call for Artillery support if necessary.
So we have 58 Iraqi Army installations. The commanders of which will all want the ability to get Air and Airtillery Support. If they want that support...they will need a 12 man Mitt Team.
This is where we get everyone in a tizzy by a Shiite politician implying 58 Large US Bases.
Not large bases just an"official residence" for the small teams of US soldiers.
The degree of exemption from local law is always a difficult discussion...the Mayor of New York is none too happy that UN Diplomats are exempted from paying parking tickets.
We dont want to be subject to Iraq law, you get the idea... I hope.
So yes the idea sound crazy as presented but it is being misrepresented by folks who want to poison the negotiations.

[Troubledgoodangel]

As far as I understand, the "bases" are meant to protect the Iraqi lawmakers. In such eventuality, it is in their best interest to approve them. For Iraq without American protection would revert to Iran sponsored and enforced civil unrest, dictatorship, and cruelty. If American bases guarantee peace for the martyred Iraqi people, I see no reason that Sen. Obama not support it.

[Krikkit]

Can't have it both ways. If Iraq is a sovereign nation, it has the right to say no to foreign presence. If it is not a sovereing nation, then the US is only pretending and pulling strings with the Iraqi parliament, and the unrest and resentment of the Iraqi people is justified. Obama knows this. It isn't up to our government to dictate what is best for Iraq.

[synapse369]

The bases were/are meant to give the US military power over Iraq and its people so we can steal its oil The Iraqis know this and want us out. We have destroyed their country and decimated their population. They don't like that - go figure?

Bottom line - they don't want us there - never did. It is, after all, THEIR country, which we invaded and occupied illegally.

Nothing the US has done their is/has been in "thie best interests".

I'm not sure where you get your "understanding", but may I suggest that the Bush propaganda machine and Fox news are not reliable sources of accurate information?

[Troubledgoodangel]

My post has just been removed by scumbags who care neither for America, nor for Iraq!

[undecidee]

That is probably the US's explanation. But, we all know what that means.

This is like that time when those senators signed that piece of paper that allowed Bush to go to war against Iraq. They all thought that it was not going to happen, but, it did. He got their signature under false pretense and did exactly what he said he wanted to do.

Now, when the US said 58 bases, we better believe it. They MEANT IT and we better believe that it is going to be large.

The Iraqis are not stupid, thank God. They will never let a trojan horse into their country and I must say that I am proud that they are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

Say NO to permanent occupation! No US soldiers in Iraq! No way no how. Americans should be in America and not in the Middle East.

[TimothyChase]

You wrote, "This is where we get everyone in a tizzy by a Shiite politician implying 58 Large US Bases.
Not large bases just an"official residence" for the small teams of US soldiers."

I don't think you have any conception of the size of these bases:
Away from the flight lines, among traffic jams and freshly planted palms, life improves on 14-square-mile Balad for its estimated 25,000 personnel, including several thousand American and other civilians.

They've inherited an Olympic-sized pool and a chandeliered cinema from the Iraqis. They can order their favorite Baskin-Robbins flavor at ice cream counters in five dining halls... On one recent evening, not far from a big 24-hour gym, airmen hustled up and down two full-length, lighted outdoor basketball courts as F-16 fighters thundered overhead.

''Balad's a fantastic base," Brigadier General Frank Gorenc, the Air Force's tactical commander in Iraq, said at his headquarters here....

In the counterinsurgency fight, Balad's central location enables strike aircraft to reach targets in minutes. And in the broader context of reinforcing the US presence in the oil-rich Mideast, Iraq bases are preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, said a longtime defense analyst.

Boston Globe: Signs of a long US stay ahead
Bases getting bigger, more elaborate
By Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press | March 26, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/26/signs_of_a_long_us_stay_ahead/?page=2

[TimothyChase]

Big bases already in place:

"These key US bases are enormous. Al-Balad/Anaconda is spread over fifteen square miles [9] while al-Asad and al-Talil bases total nearly twenty square miles each. [10] Even in the vicinity of Baghdad, the US base complex Victory/Liberty is so big that it accommodates a 140 mile triathlon course. [11] A large number of US service personnel are stationed at these facilities, as well as private construction crews and other contract workers. For military personnel alone, al-Balad/Anaconda counts 20,000, [12] al-Asad 17,000 [13] and Victory/Liberty 14,000. [14] Construction and contract crews number thousands more."

Report: War and Occupation in Iraq
Chapter 10:
Long-Term Bases and the New Embassy Compound
By Global Policy Forum and partners
January 2007
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/bases.htm

[bumpersticker]

Wasn't it just a month ago we were trying to assure the world we wanted NO permanent bases? Seems the GOP torpedoed that as well.
Face it, we are a lieing, deceiving, aggressor nation under Bush&Co.

[labstellamom4]

I am almost positive that I heard that same piece........I think the depth and breadth of the dishonesty will not be known truly for generations........This has to stop !!