[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The pics are collected thorugh open source projects and show the state of the basis - before the americans arrived. I admit I was unprecise when saying "pics like this make me think that...". There had been pics of two of these basis short after christmas, where you could have seen how giant the defense perimeter is. The area with building may be for example 20x5 km, but the flat defense perimter around this is muczh bigger. similiar bases exist throughout the gulf region, and were errected especially after they moved out of Saudi-Arabia. so I meant "material like this in general make me think that..."

It's about the monumental size of defense perimeters. These are so huge in size, that you can cross the border of them - and still will not see the base.

That way, movement trackers, infrared, and whatever kind of hightech they use already track your moevemnt down and direct defense forces to your psoiton long before you even can see the "base", or are in range of classical traditonal firarms terrorists and partisans are expected to use. Any intruder already has tripped the wires while he still cannot see anything valuable. In middle Europe, for example, such isolated places are almost unthinkable, due to the crowded population density.

I would think this should be a standard in a combat zone, wouldn't you?

I can tell you that here in Israel, highly startegic bases have an immense empty perimeter around them for security purposes, in case of intrusion.

Once again, I don't see this as being indicative of a 10 or 20 year stay. This seems like simply dealing with current realities on the ground.

You outlined the size of one base yourself. By that you give indication yourself that this is not a short-timed stay ony.

What was the original size of this base when Saddam last ran it?

That was something else I outlined.

What is so dramatic about capturing an existing airbase and making it the strategic military air hub near Baghdad?

There are two comprabale bases that were left afetr the Balkans war. They still are there, and are almost forgotten by the public. One is wondering why they are still operated. Isn't the Balkan war said to be over?

Are they run by the US or by NATO?

What does this have to do with "a more permanent role in Gulf regional security"?

Could these Balkan bases simply be a way of the US/NATO maintaining airbases for general strategic purposes, without a particular exiting interest in the Balkans themselves?

Similar bases exist in Afghanistan - there they also are highly unlikely to leave anytime within the next couple of years - at least.

Again, there's nothing new here. There's still a war going on there, however, nowhere near the intensity it was at when the US initially declared war on Afghanistan.

And he quotes from a report http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf on the rebuilt of american defenses from the "project for an american century", date 2000 - before bush even was elected, I did not read the whole long document, but have it ony m HD since some years. The author gives these quotes from it:

[1] "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. ... Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future."

[2] "...precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

[3] At the time of publication, the authors held the following positions: Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College, Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University, Stephen Cambone, National Defense University, Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Devon Gaffney Cross, Donors' Forum for International Affairs, Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century, David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense,, Net Assessment, David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Donald Kagan, Yale University, Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point, Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.), William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation, I. Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College, Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College, Steve Rosen, Harvard University, Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation, Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Barry Watts, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation.

[4] "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


Ouch

Again, this is not news. The US has bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Had Saddam died of natural causes and had 9/11 never occurred, those bases would still meet the definition of "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf."

Trying to assess US long-term strategies by measuring defense perimeters and by ignoring the fact that these bases were already built by the Iraqis 20 years ago and that they are in at-present hostile areas to begin indicates nothing on its own.

Does that mean the US won't be in Iraq 10 years from now? No. It just doesn't prove that they will be either.