Casper Star-Tribune Online

Advanced Search

Fog of war hides military objective

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:

trib.popular

Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:05 AM MST

Editor:

Speculating on withdrawal from Iraq:

Ever since the Bush administration openly began discussing a need to invade Iraq -- following the 9/11/2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York -- I have had an image in my mind. That image is a picture of a grand American airfield somewhere near Baghdad.

Call me suspicious, but I have suspected all along that was the real reason why the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq -- to establish a permanent American managed military base in the middle of Iraq. It could include willing participation from other countries, but essentially, it was probably envisioned as mostly American managed.

The purpose of that permanent base is to aid in the stabilizing of the Middle East. I suspect that those in the Bush administration who envisioned such a base really had a motive of peace in mind, and still do have such a motive for having established a base.

I am not sure why neighbor, Kuwait, could not have served as the location for such a base, but I suspect that there were problems with that prospect, perhaps from some significant resistance to such an idea within Kuwait.

If I am right and the Bush administration did, in fact, have a permanent airfield/military base in Iraq in mind, I think I would be very pleased if I were them -- at this time of transferring power to the next administration. Why? Because a mission was accomplished.

They pulled it off, and almost no one knows the real intent. Try to dismantle or surrender that established base now and see how difficult it will be. I think the Bush administration knew that it would be almost impossible for any subsequent administration to undo a permanent military base, and they are probably right.

So, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and team can go quietly and confidently off the main stage now and know that no matter who has taken over the reins of power in the United States, their dream and their vision will have been established, and it might work out quite well, too. Time will tell.

I smile, though, at the talk of having some timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. If I am right, and permanency was intended from the very beginning, there will never be a complete withdrawal.

Of course, troops can be reduced in number, but more than likely, that reduction will never reach zero because far more than zero will be required to maintain the base -- or bases -- we have founded. Right?

FRANCIS WILLIAM BESSLER, Laramie


Timeline uncovers questions		Coal provides half of our electricity

Article Rating

Reader Comments

There are 9 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

TR wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:40 AM:

" The 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and most Americans know it now. This was a lie pumped up by those lying war mongering crooks to further their agenda in the Middle East. How those lying crooks have managed to get away with this is mind boggling. It really is amazing just how many Americans can be so gullible . "

amazonjude wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:22 AM:

" fran, one reason were are over there is the oil, and that bush used the 9/11 attacks to be able to invade with the intent to get the oil out there. secondly our president Obama will be getting our troops out of there because we can no longer aford 10 trillion a month to keep them there . and 3rd two wars are killing americans and not getting us one more drop of oil then thay want to sell to us, so theres no point anymore.
amazonjude "

Tom S wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:09 AM:

" If you open up your history books to the SPAM war, you will see that the purpose of our taking the Phillipines was for coaling stations for our Navy. We we able to defeat the Spanish government in a matter of months, but for some reason the Phillipino people kept resisting us. The Phillipine insurections took years to suppress and cost many more American lives than the actual victory over the Spanish did. And who says History doesn't repeat itself?? "

Poster wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:50 PM:

" Third try -

Imagine this possibility: After Gulf War 1, we had a deal with the Saudi's to establish permanent bases there, which might have been needed to stabilize area permanently. But the idea of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia didn't go over so well with the clerics. We might have had a similar deal with Kuwait, but it would have run into the same problems. In addition, Kuwait is too small geographically to accommodate the scale of the planned presence.

Not wanting to anger the Saudis or the Kuwaitis, our best friends in the Arab world, we instead take over Iraq and put permanent bases there. Since many of the bases we have had in Europe since WW2 became superfluous with the end of the Cold War, we relocate much of the capability we had in Europe to the new Mid-East bases which are much closer and guarantee a quicker response time in the most probable conflict zones.

And of course yes, once they are established (which I believe they are) they would be almost impossible to abandon.

Just a thought, probably delusional. "

Tom in London UK wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:13 PM:

" "Withdrawing all COMBAT troops" is the expression used.

That leaves all the bases, with tens of thousands of American troops and materiel, still dominating Iraq.

That wasn't what people thought they were getting.

The idea was was to get OUT of Iraq. Obama got elected largely on that ticket, so if he fools around with it, he's going to have to answer some questions from the people who voted for him. "

Poster wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:33 PM:

" My imagination must be more vivid than Mr. Besslers. In addition to the "grand American airfield somewhere near Baghdad", I imagine 13 even grander ones spread throughout the country.

I also imagine 30 or 40 smaller "emergency airfields" just in case an aircraft in trouble need to land quickly; or if special ops teams need to launch missions from points closer to their objectives than the major bases. "

wyoslick wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:21 AM:

" Jude – If Iraqi oil was the goal why go to war, when just lifting sanctions would have accomplished the same objective? It’s not like Iraq was hoarding oil. The Iraqis wanted to put more oil into the market. The UN, at the behest of the US, and their economic sanctions were their only impediment.
The “War for Oil” argument only makes sense to those ignorant of the path crude oil from around the world takes to get into the local convenience store pumps as gasoline. "

Carrier wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:10 AM:

" We already have a major/HUGE operating base in theater. It is in Qatar. We have one in Kuwait, just not on as large a scale. We also have operating bases throughout the UAE as well. Abandoning whatever bases we have in Iraq would not be as difficult as you would think. "

EdW wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:44 PM:

" War for oil, war for oil. Yeah, yeah. Keep repeating it long enough, someone will start believing it. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.