When will the assclown in charge understand that as long as we are in Iraq, Americans will be dying?
Posted by Seven of Six at June 1, 2007 11:01 AM7,
Staying in Iraq is the goal of this maladministration. Cheney's Halliburton is getting big, no bid contracts and the other cronies are getting tier cut. It's be un American to want to mess up this neocon paradise.
Posted by herbal tee at June 1, 2007 11:10 AMI wish there was a map of these huge maga-bases, I've heard rumors there are four of them.
For Christ's sake, all those hundred of billions of dollars had to go somewhere! Not all of it could have been stolen.
Somehow the story has to get out there with something more than this meaningless text of lies. There are no images of these massive installations? Nothing?
Most Americans are under the impression one day, in some way, we will leave. I hope so, anyway. I was, in some part of my mind. I hope the 2008 candidate has the fortitude to cut all the horrible losses and get the hell out of there forever. Somehow after last week that really is starting to seem like a dream.
Posted by paradox at June 1, 2007 11:36 AMparadox, apparently the plans for the Baghdad embassy have turned up online.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 1, 2007 11:50 AMparadox, apparently the plans for the Baghdad embassy have turned up online.
Yeah Iamcoyote, and taken down just as quickly.
Posted by Judith at June 1, 2007 11:55 AMFrom Think Progress:
The complex “will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.”
According to news reports, “Some U.S. officials acknowledged that damage may have been done by the postings and used expletives to describe their personal reactions.” But it is unclear whether the damage was done to security or public relations. (Aerial images of the embassy can be easily obtained from sites like Google Maps.)
The real damage of these images comes from bolstering the perception of a long-term U.S. occupation. While Americans will be living in posh quarters, the citizens of Baghdad are currently surviving with just 5.6 hours of electricity a day. Baghdad was also recently rated the world’s worst city in which to live.
Then MSNBC notes: company spokesman Jeffrey Willis. “Google Earth could give you a better snapshot of what the site looks like on the ground.”
Now that is some kind of OPSEC. Who hired these guys?...nevermind.
While you see reports of 4 permanent bases in Iraq, I have read elswhere that there are in fact 7 permanent basis under construction, and the 4 are just the completed ones. I can't recall where I read that (might have been Sy Hersh). Does anyone know the answer?
Posted by gtash at June 1, 2007 12:50 PMOur "permanent" bases will provide amusing diversion for the Iraqi resistance artillery rockets & tubes.
Contractors profiting from their construction will be the only beneficiaries.
The only truth Rumsfeld ever said was the USA may very well be in Iraq for 100 years.
Empire! Empire! More Empire!
Too bad these neocon kooks never read history and the disaster empire was for Europe.
Posted by Christopher at June 1, 2007 01:49 PM14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
Posted by Judith at June 1, 2007 03:09 PMOf course, the Bush Administration denys the bases. Wouldn't want those Iraqis, or the Americans, to think we plan on long term occupacy.
Posted by Judith at June 1, 2007 03:24 PM"steve, can you comprehend the very simple principle of democratic free expression?
Scout, can you comprehend the very simple principle of losing that freedom of expression.
Posted by Judith at June 1, 2007 03:46 PMThe Iraqis have been down this road before. They recite odes and sing folk songs about liberating Iraq from the British occupiers. It is in their soul to the last man, woman and child.
Weapons and explosives are readily available in Iraq for a price, adequate ammo for sabatage of oil infrastructure. Without stability.... no insurance coverage...... no corporate commitment, Oil Law be damned.
We simply cannot afford the costs of a hostile occupation. Unless, of course, the will of the people is meaningless. (a distinct possibility)
Are we, as a country, experiencing a psuedo-1980's meltdown like Russia? Really, how long can they continue to flood the world with created dollars? How many bubbles must grow and bust to occupy all that excessive capital? And how screwed are the losers in those investment value "fluctuations"?
At some point, the federal debt obligations will be so gargantuon that it will be obvious to all that they will never be paid back.
What then?
Posted by brisa at June 1, 2007 06:51 PMRemember the excuse used by Condi Rice to try to explain why she and the Bush administration blew off the al Qaeda terrorist threat before 9/11? (I believe it was in response to a question about why the Bush administration held only ONE principals-level counter-terrorism meeting on Sept. 4th, ONE WEEK before the attacks on Sept. 11th).
She said that they didn't address the al Qaeda threat because they were busy working on a "regional strategy," presumably one that would have encompassed and nullified the al Qaeda terrorist threat.
Now we know that the only "regional strategy" that she and the Bush administration were working on before (and after 9/11) involved overthrowing Saddam Hussein, seizing control of Iraq's oil assets and constructing permanent military bases (and a huge embassy) inside Iraq.
Thus, two American tragedies, the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War, caused by two oil men in the White House and their obsession over controlling Middle East oil.
Posted by The Oracle at June 1, 2007 10:10 PMWhy would anyone think we would leave Iraq?
The strategy was rather transparent wouldnt you say so?
I think visuals are helpful. Check out the map at the bottom of this post-
We're basically encircling Iran with bases- and Iraq was the missing piece of real estate we needed.
This is but one of many reasons we need Clark. I cringe when I think of the current media-declared front-runners attempting to clean up the mess Jr. will leave behind.
Not only did Clark correctly predict exactly what would happen if we attacked Iraq, back in 2002, he has since stated numerous times that we must make it clear that we intend NOT to have permanent bases there.
From May, last year:
~~~
By Garentina Kraja | AP via Navy Times
PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro
~ snip ~
Clark, a four-star general who served as the supreme commander of NATO in 1997-2000 and unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said the fledging Iraqi government must take charge and be given the means to address the security in the country.
“It’s necessary ... to make this year a year of transition in Iraq,” Clark told The Associated Press in an interview during his visit to Kosovo. “The Iraqi government must take charge.”
He said that ministers of interior, defense and national security should be appointed, but also said that a lot of help is needed from the international community to strengthen the Iraqi government in meeting the needs of the people.
“And then we should begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers and other coalition soldiers from Iraq,” said Clark.
“I do think that there should be no permanent bases there. I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment,” he said, adding that he believed there will be “some withdrawals very soon given where we are.”
...
http://securingamerica.com/node/1017
Posted by jen at June 2, 2007 02:09 PMI looked at snowmoon's link with the basing information and the map. I think Iranians would be very uncomfortable with what is developing and will be spurred to erect all sorts of defenses including a nuclear counterweight. This has the earmarks of a "containment" strategy except that the basing locations might one day become as hostile as the threat we appear to be containing.
Posted by gtash at June 2, 2007 03:11 PMThe US administration (Repigs) are very interested in th the Iraqi oil and gas. However, so are Russia and China. Things could get VERY nasty. We are looking at nukes, and rusty ones at that. The A-3 featured multiple re-entry vehicles (MRVs) which spread the warheads about a common target, and the B-3 was to have penetration aids to counter Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses. The B-3 missile evolved into the C-3 Poseidon missile, which abandoned the decoy concept in favour of using the C3's greater throw-weight for larger numbers (10-14) of new hardened high-re-entry-speed reentry vehicles that could overwhelm Soviet defences by sheer weight of numbers, and its high speed after re-entry. The abandoned decoy system for the B-3 (Antelope) was known to the UK where it was adopted and evolved into Super Antelope, KH.793 and later re-labelled Chevaline.
[edit] British Polaris
British Polaris, Imperial War Museum, London
British Polaris, Imperial War Museum, London
The British became interested in Polaris after the cancellations of the Blue Streak and Skybolt missiles in the 1950s. Under the Nassau agreement that emerged from the 1962 Nassau Conference between Harold Macmillan and John F. Kennedy, the United States would supply Britain with Polaris missiles, launch tubes, ReBs and the fire control system. Britain would make the warheads and submarines. In return, the British agreed to assign control over missile targeting to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe) with the provison that in a national emergency when unsupported by NATO allies, the targeting, permission to fire, and use of the missiles would reside with the UK national authorities. Nevertheless, the consent of the British Prime Minister was always required for the use of British nuclear weapons, including Polaris. Confusingly, the operational control of the Polaris submarines was assigned to another NATO Supreme Commander, SACLANT, based at Norfolk, Virginia, although SACLANT routinely delegated control to his deputy commander in the Eastern Atlantic area, COMEASTLANT, always a British admiral. The Polaris Sales Agreement was signed on April 6, 1963.
British Polaris submarines were the Resolution-class ballistic missile submarines. Although one boat of the four was always in refit, recent declassifications of archived files disclose that the Royal Navy deployed four boatloads of RVs and warheads plus spare warheads for Polaris A3T, retaining a limited ability to arm and put to sea the boat that was in refit. When replaced by Chevaline, the deployed RVs/warheads reduced to three boatloads.
The original U.S.Navy Polaris had not been designed to penetrate ABM defences, but the British had to ensure that their small Polaris force operating alone and often with only one submarine on station, could penetrate the ABM screen around Moscow; British strategy being based on a decapitation model. Even before the UK Polaris entered service it was understood that it was vulnerable to the Moscow ABM defence, with intelligence reports stating that a single well-placed ABM detonation could destroy all three warheads from a Polaris A3T missile.
[edit] Chevaline
The UK Polaris was subsequently updated with an 'Improved-Front-End' (IFE) added to replace the unhardened warheads and ReBs of the original in a programme to ensure that the Moscow defences could be penetrated with warheads that were not MIRVed. American strategy was different, being to 'drench' or 'swamp' the defences of 64-100 ABMs with large quantities of MIRVed warheads. With their large stocks of warheads they eschewed decoys or penaids.
The result was a programme called Chevaline that reduced the number of new super-hardened warheads and ReBs to two, and added multiple decoys, chaff, and other defensive countermeasures. Its genesis was in part, a similar programme in the United States called Antelope which the British knew of and adopted, adding other features to become Super Antelope and later KH.793; later relabelled Chevaline. Although Chevaline was designed in Britain it was heavily dependent on U.S. government and industry assistance and approximately half the Chevaline programme costs were spent in the United States.
The Chevaline project was kept secret by four successive British governments, and its existence was only revealed in 1980 by Margaret Thatcher's then defence minister Francis Pym, partly because cost over-runs of the project which had almost quadrupled the original estimate given when the project was finally approved in January 1975. The system became operational in mid-1982 on HMS Renown and the last British SSBN submarines was equipped with it in mid-1987.[1]
Although planning for a successor-system to Chevaline began in 1969, the British rationale for pursuing the expensive Chevaline programme was part-based on the expected lifetime of the submarine hulls. When the decision was taken in January 1975, to opt for Chevaline, the hulls were less than ten years old, with an expected life of thirty years. The improvements to Polaris extended the missile life to almost match the life of the submarines, while meeting the essential requirement of the British military planners; that Chevaline could penetrate the Moscow defences.
The 'unimproved' British Polaris A3T carried three 200kt warheads[2] designated ET.317 in U.S. Mk-2 RVs, comprised of a primary known as Jennie and a thermonuclear secondary known as Reggie.[3] The integrated upgraded Polaris and Chevaline system was known as A3TK and carried two warheads in upgraded British-designed RVs. These warheads used the new Harriet primary[4] with the Reggie thermonuclear secondary re-used from the ET.317 warhead,[5] and their nuclear yield increased to 225kt.[6] This system was deployed from 1982 to 1996, when it was gradually replaced by Trident D5.
[edit] Replacement
The British upgraded to the Trident missile after much political wrangling within the Callaghan Labour government over the cost and necessity. Unusually, after a General Election, and in the interests of national security, the outgoing Prime Minister James Callaghan made his government's papers on Trident available to Margaret Thatcher's incoming Conservative government who promptly took the decision to acquire Trident C4, later upgraded to Trident D5.
A subsequent decision to upgrade to the larger, longer-ranged Trident D5 was probably taken to ensure that there was commonality between the United States Navy and the Royal Navy; which was especially important when they were to use common repair and maintenance facilities at King's Bay, Georgia.
A recurring problem with the British Polaris force had been that it remained in service long after Polaris was retired by the United States Navy; consequently many spare parts and repair facilities in the U.S. ceased to be available. The British had to have production lines re-opened at considerable expense, for example to extend the life of their solid fuel propellant motors. This had been a strongly argued part of the UK naval preference for choosing the Poseidon system as an alternative to the earlier decision to choose Chevaline. In hindsight, Poseidon would have been a cheaper and militarily more effective successor to the original Polaris system than Chevaline, that was chosen after much dissent amongst the military planners, the defence scientific and engineering community, and the defence procurement agencies. Chevaline was not the best military option, a view now acknowledged by senior proponents of it at the time. But it was chosen to keep alive British hopes of retaining a capability to design and build advanced warhead and re-entry vehicle systems that a purchase of Poseidon from the United States would not require. A subsidiary purpose (especially of the Heath government) was to have 'something to bring to the bargaining table' in a hoped for deal to develop an Anglo-French alternative for a Chevaline successor system, although that eventually foundered, and the Thatcher government chose Trident.
Commonality of the Trident D5 missiles means that a missile can be issued by King's Bay to either a British or a U.S. SSBN. Only the warheads, installed later, are different.
Posted by tempus at August 24, 2007 10:52 AMSteve, this is tempus commenting. Have you banned me? Please tell me, either way.
comments are moderated after they move off the front page - ed.
Posted by tempus at August 24, 2007 10:58 AM