The wording used by the Bush administration appears to have been chosen to obscure its intention to have both long-term access to Iraqi bases and complete freedom to use them to launch operations against Iran and Syria. Full Story »
Posted by Jeff Clark
as far as this reader can tell a fair article,I wish the article had taken it a step further inso much as what effect permanent bases would have on Iraq and the Middle East
The 'strategic framework' agreement that the US is negotiating with the Green Zone government promises that the US will not establish 'permanent bases' in Iraq, which in the subtle language of neo-connese means that the military installations there will last a little less time than Almighty Allah. Porter provides examples of similar Pentafibs from Nam and the Philippines. Good expose of one more blunder in the Bush-McCain Iraqi debacle.
The Bush administration intended to obtain permanent military bases in Iraq when it invaded that unfortunate country, and concealing the agenda has been part of the administration's strategy all along. The story highlights this aspect exceptionally well. I agree with the author that the purpose of the bases is not to protect Iraq, but to facilitate possible attacks on Iran or Syria.
Retrieving Comments
