Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had an excellent, all to brief, interview on NPR this morning. He highlighted one of the most critical aspects of U.S. policy in Iraq — and one that has received shockingly little discussion: the string of permanent military bases built by the Bush administration. Webb said the bases have to go. I completely agree.
The Bush administration, as the President recently admitted, is fighting this war to control Iraq’s oil supplies. This is a fundamental error. The age of empires is over. Plastic explosives, cheap radios, and automatic weapons ended it. The U.S. cannot control Iraq using the imperial model. The sooner this reality is acknowledged, the better.
The permanent bases are a concrete manifestation of failed strategy. We should hand them over to the Iraqi government as soon as practicable. A refusal to do so is an indication that Bush has not yet accepted reality. Webb deserves applause.
Webb’s right–the only people who argue for the imperial effort are people like Cheney, who are few, though influential in their positions.
<
p>
Most people in America don’t want permanent bases around the world. Liberals & the anti-war left don’t want them, and–from my experience talking to the middle-class conservatives I’ve known in Arkansas and Texas–conservative voters don’t want them either, now that the Communist threat is over. Many conservative voters have something of an isolationist bent: they know they don’t understand foreign cultures, and can’t see a reason for their kids to die there.
<
p>
People like Cheney have managed to leverage the sense of honor in the warrior culture of America to get those bases. Cheney and his ilk know that once America gets into a war, a majority of Americans don’t want to back down or “cut and run.” So, Cheney starts declaiming a “threat” from a nation that isn’t in the top 60 of GDP (yes, in 2002 Iraq’s economy was behind the sheep-ranching-based economy of New Zealand), and the Media bullhorns his message without fact-checking, and he gets his war.
<
p>
And for awhile, the majority of voters don’t want to quit.
<
p>
Looks like the “while” just ran out.
the stat for Iraq’s GDP wasn’t for 2002, it was 2005. Iraq was ranked 66th in 2002. Uh, anyway, point is, Saddam Hussein had a lousy Wehrmacht.
Do you also want our bases removed from Germany, Japan, South Korea, and every other place we have them in?
Yes. Seems to me like the events of 1989 ended their useful purpose.
One can oppose bases in country X without opposing them in all countries. I don’t like brussel sprouts, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to eat anything!
I think we SHOULD withdraw from most of our overseas bases, but not all of them.
<
p> But, i also do not oppose bases in Iraq for a short-term period. Doesn’t it make sense, as part of a grandual withdrawal strategy, to withdraw ALL of our Iraqi forces to the bases for a few years, before withdrawing completely? They could stay on base except when they are absolutely positively needed.
This mess will not get any better.
I hear there are a lot of republican staffers and congressfolk looking for something to do. Besides staying out of jail.
Let’s close ALL our bases in Germany – especially since they want to extradite Rumsfeld based upon their self-voted ‘worldwide jurisdiction’. Let’s move all that money and equipment to Bulgaria, which has back us since Day One.
<
p>
And then watch what remains of the somnolent Germany economy crash down.