Permanent US Bases In Iraq?

In the autumn of 2004, John Pike, an American expert who heads GlobalSecurities.org, claimed the US maintained or were still building at least 12 military bases in Iraq. His military affairs website gave their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune in March 2004 said US engineers were constructing 14 "enduring bases", but Pike has not located two of them.

The terminology "enduring" bases is Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from almost 130,000 now to 50,000 and station them in bases, the costs would run at $6-7 bn a year. That is two to three times as much as the annual US subsidy to Israel. (Providing protection for Israel is one of several reasons cited for the US invasion of Iraq). If more troops are based in Iraq for the long haul, the cost would be higher.

So far, the Bush administration has not publicly indicated that it will seek permanent bases in Iraq to replace those given up in Saudi Arabia, a possibility mentioned in 2004 by the then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank president) before US forces moved into Iraq. The US already has bases in Kuwait and Qatar. At an April 2003 press conference, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said any suggestion that the US was planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate".

Several military experts in Washington are said to assume Iraq's government will need the support of American troops - and thus "permanent" bases - for years, perhaps decades, to come. The US already has 886-894 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major air force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. Perhaps bases in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities.

As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defence Department has been cutting the number of its installations in Germany, which in 2004 totalled more than 100. In 2004 Rumsfeld testified about a global "rearrangement" of US forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. "Who needs Germany when we have Iraq?" asked Pike of GlobalSecurities.org in the autumn of 2004.

Making the bases permanent could stir up more opposition to the US occupation. Another fear, however, is that without US bases, the various Iraqi factions - the Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds - would fall into civil war. In turn, this conflict could drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, leading to a widespread conflict in the Middle East. Hope of establishing a democracy in an Arab country would fade. To avoid these risks, Pike in 2004 said, an Iraq government will accept a US military presence despite popular disapproval. Pike added: "An indefinite American presence in Iraq is the ultimate guarantor of some quasi-pluralistic government".

Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the neo-con American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has warned withdrawal of US forces would be seen by Iraqi insurgents as a victory, prompting them to redouble their efforts to kill Americans. The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defence spending in 2004 amounted to a bit more than 4% of GDP. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5% of GDP, still less than the 6.5% of GDP in the cold war or the 10% during the Vietnam War.