Op Ed: YOU Own a Network
Of Iraq War Bases
'Built for Permanence'

Billions-on-Billions Spent "Quietly" for Fortress-Towns.

This image does not bode well for the future of U.S. embassy building in Iraq. While people there have complained about a lack of real support for rebuilding a country destroyed largely by western bombs and other weapons, Americans fund the construction of permanent embassies for our planned, prolonged stay there. Courtesy: indymedia.org.nz

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Now we know why Presidential candidate McCain talks of "100 years in Iraq".

The U.S. has been building world-record massive military installations across Iraq --funded lushly with taxpayer money at monstrous levels, ever since early-on-- and continuing to this very day.

Whether unintentional --or in full knowledge of this ongoing effort-- McCain’s time-period, untl now simply a campaign-time "joke", becomes extremely and painfully understandable.

Only now --years into this tremendous enterprise in Middle East domination-- are partial press reports now surfacing, forcing further”intriguing questions” on our real Mid East policies.

See "THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD: Finally, the U.S. Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News"; or at informationclearinghouse.info/article20103.htm.

Did YOU know YOU owned (as a U.S. taxpayer) a share in such a massively-threatening string-of-bases in Iraq; AND an equally massive “U.S. Embassy” there, in Baghdad? Did Congress KNOW that such massive monies were being so-expended? Very early-on, even before 2003.

Does restricted information about this surely-striking now-revealed development perhaps answer that puzzling question on WHY impeachment is so firmly "off the table"?

We also now are receiving first detailed reports about "the largest U.S. Embassy-center in the world", with thousands of employees and military, contractor and associated workers and facilities. It is massively constructed "for the ages" --to preserve, protect, and provide comprehensive services and systems for its developing mission in the Middle East.

That Embassy occupies 104 acres --"Vatican-size", Engelhardt reports-- and is costing $750 million (so far), with operating costs of $1.2 billion (sure to increase). It will serve 1,000 ‘diplomats’, as he describes its "very-checkered/career" occupants.

This new U.S. Embassy structure clearly will now dominate the entire U.S. diplomatic-mission in the Mid East area. Its presence surely demeans any other possible mission for US --that’s you-and me !-- except further sure-to-be bloody-steps into the maelstrom of the Middle East.

Did YOU "sign on" for that Bush-cabal outcome?

Did Congress somehow let this one slip through -- with no definitive public hearings-- perhaps failing to exercise their Constitutional responsibilities for probing supervision of the Executive in all things?

We are learning --for the first time-- about a whole series of "fortress-cities costing billions on billions" and already spanning the entire Iraq area. There are several absolutely-huge military air bases, with air-traffic equal or exceeding Chicago’s O’Hare or London’s Heathrow; Air Base Balad, 60 miles N. of Baghdad, is a 16-mile-square fortress housing perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops, contractors, special-ops types, and Defense Department employees", Englelhardt reports.

There’s a growing string of other "mega-and-mini" military-operational bases --perhaps 200, as reported by some sources, now. In 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, Army engineer in charge, reported “several billion dollars” ALREADY INVESTED THEN.

Within 2 1/2 years, the U.S. acknowledged "106 bases, mega-to-micro, all across the country", the report from Engelhardt states.

Surely SOMEbody "in the media" reporting from those areas, some traveling via Air Force planes; or among those distinguished persons and politicians who have traveled there (including McCain); must have done so through --or at least over !--one or more of these huge operational air bases; or other construction-areas and special-facility situations.

As Engelhardt details, hundreds of thousands of American have passed through some of the mega-bases, including not only troops, but contractors, mercenary warriors, Pentagon gurus, Congressional delegations, even Presidential candidates.

WHY have we seen no tv-news footage, no stand-ups with those visiting Iraq, a any of these bases? Bush himself met Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki at "the enormous Al-Asad Air Base...in the Western desert of Iraq" --with journalists-in-tow-- just last year. BUT we never saw even a glimpse of the base itself then or at any other time before or since.

WHY no fully-detailed reports of this particularly sensitive and very high-cost continuing heavy-investment in Iraq? It’s been FIVE MORE YEARS since 2003 and its reported billions already invested --THEN? How much-more, for-what, has NOW been SPENT?

Did you see any-such image-building coverage or read any detailed description, or encounter any even-partial explanation of the-WHY for this surely all-too-visible operational activity in Iraq?

During that continuing-operations five-year/stint which has so clearly NOW taken place?

I can’t recall any Congressional hearing-report, or even any Congressional news-squib, about justification --much less actual approval-- for such huge, obviously special-purpose, expenditures. DO YOU recall any?

Has Congress resigned its notably significant work in shaping U.S. foreign policy? The Constitution and separation-of-powers leaves foreign policy, mostly and usually, to the Executive.

But Congress has always played a major role, as it needs must since relations with other nations is so highly politically-charged and so tightly-connected with the economy, trade, tariffs, immigration and other areas.

Has that notorious "unitary chief executive" theory already forced its way further into our Constitutional pattern for governance? Has the President acted not only to overwhelm the Constitutionally-assigned Congressional war-decision, but also supersede its surveillance role for foreign affairs?

Where was "the mainstream media" while all this striking change in our American governance was happening ? Where were the investigative reporting specialists? Where were the foreign-affairs analysts?

For any commonsense person, such display of armed forces intentions "to flex-muscle and make-huge-fist", made possible only by secretive Presidential action, is sure indication the U.S. has no intention whatsoever to allow Iraq rapid return to its independent national sovereignty or democratic governance--any time soon.

When coupled with parallel massive-multiplication of the Embassy facilities, clearly preparing for a much larger demanded-role there, the image begins to sharpen and take on added very-threatening larger-dimensions.

What it does demonstrate --without a shadow of doubt possible, if these now-surfacing reports are anywhere near the reality-- is that U.S. intention was not just to manipulate and manage "regime change" in Iraq --but something/more from Day One.

For "regime-change" one needs "preemptive attack" and some critical deployment, over some period of time, while truly democratic governance is readied and installed. Then troops come home and the new nation goes on its own.

BUT there is simply no need for billions-on-billions of world-record big-fortress cities and world/record air bases, constructed "with every modern facility just like home" and manned with many thousands of troops, contractors, special-forces personnel, and government workers. That presages ongoing extensive operations.

When such facilities are "built-for-the ages" and equipped with "their own defense installations, their own power production facilities, their own water supplies, and their ow streets, stop-lights, ‘fast-food’ franchises, and everything else to make Americans feel right at home out here", there is only a single meaning possible: That kind, size and cost-of-effort can only be fully intended to "militarize, monopolize, manipulate and massively manage every square foot for U.S. interests".

What does such extended, exceedingly expensive effort tell you, rapidly and unmistakably, about our NEXT STEPS? Where else is oil --in reserve and in large quantity ready for shipment-- to be found, now? What other nation --so we have heard, for months now-- "is right in our sights" and being set up for new bombing attack?

Who is the major driving force behind those often repeated manipulative threats, based again on the same (still doubtful) charge of "the possession of atomic means" for mass destruction?

That can only be understood as clearly and quietly mirroring 18th and 19th Century empire-building --as in previous power-hungry world-trade piracy--most had thought far-outmoded ever since our own American Revolution set off similar resistances to national freedom.

You will recall that our Revolution preceded the French nation’s freedom-snatching efforts, sharing its philosophical foundations. For decades thereafter world history has been wracked and riddled by similar efforts in many smaller and larger "developing nations"; every one of them seeking to emulate the American model we once offered as democracy "with a dream".

Now we are seen as seeking to overwhelm Iraq completely for our own military domination of the Middle East --and its world-supplying oil reserves. Can anyone blame other nations for asking, now that the construction pattern in Iraq is becoming so visible, who our next victim will be? AND when?

Makes one want to ask those famous Watergate Questions: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

The impeachment process cannot possibly operate without scanning, probing, overturning silence and subterfuge and secretive actions, while seeking "the answers" now made more necessary than ever by these new reports.

Only this time we must, willy/nilly, also seek answers from those we elected to serve in Congress, too. They swore an oath to protect and preserve our Constitution --even from an "imperial President".