Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says

[Skybird]

The article is by the director of a Austrian centre of foreign poltical studies, arms control and security.

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.

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

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

Special attention to this:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earl...w_ba.html#more

this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...103681,00.html

and this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...ring-bases.htm

Where as this probably already is outdated:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/I...pects_long.htm

the author of that essay also refers to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

and this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/i...ightforoil.htm

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, and for Konovalov the author even presented a link to a very good documentation on the missle-memo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Iraq would have been attacked in any case, no matter if there would have been a Saddam Hussein or not. the place is wanted because it has oil, and is an excellent and very strong geostrategical location. They went there to stay for very, very long, but for different reasons than what they told their people at home.

[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.

[Skybird]

You play with the single pieces, and try to reduce the general context on meanings that do not lead beyond the single pieces. A tactic of distraction that is. You reject to put them together for a bigger picture, and harmlessly claim that is not possible. Maybe because doing so would reveal the intentions behind this that the public is wanted to be unaware of. Or because Israel directly benefits from the realization of American interests. If you can'T see that today'S realities on the ground and the current policy makin does not reflect planning that leads - at least - fifteen years into the past, I leave you alone in that innocence.

There is a saying: the whole is more than the sum of it's pieces.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You play with the single pieces, and try to reduce the general context on meanings that do not lead beyond the single pieces. A tactic of distraction that is. You reject to put them together for a bigger picture, and harmlessly claim that is not possible. Maybe because doing so would reveal the intentions behind this that the public is wanted to be unaware of. Or because Israel directly benefits from the realization of American interests. If you can'T see that today'S realities on the ground and the current policy makin does not reflect planning that leads - at least - fifteen years into the past, I leave you alone in that innocence.

There is a saying: the whole is more than the sum of it's pieces.

But that's my point. These single pieces alone, the airbases, are not on their own indicitive of the extent of the US' planned stay in Iraq.

And all of a sudden, you introduce Israel into this? Is this indicative of anything Skybird? The only reason I brought up Israel is to draw similarities to the physical perimeters of airbases. Or are you alluding to something more sinister?

I never said it was not possible. I said that proving the US' long term intentions through the architecture of these airbases is not ON ITS OWN proof.

Bush has 2 years left. The next president might decide to cut the US' losses and exit Iraq, which I have stated I personally think is the right thing to do. Will Bush himself change his mind? Very doubtful.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Bush has 2 years left. The next president might decide to cut the US' losses and exit Iraq, which I have stated I personally think is the right thing to do. Will Bush himself change his mind? Very doubtful.

And let the Sunni and Shi'a fight it out?

I've come a little around to this mode of thinking. With an Iran'd Iraq, all the other Sunni muslims would feel the pressure of their own Shi'a majorities. The UAE and Oman, in particular. Although Saudi Arabia would feel the Shi'a pressure, as well. They'd eventually start pushing into Egypt.

Whether or not any of this improves Israel's future, I am unsure.

And I would rather support a Kurdistan than Turkey. Turkey is certainly no ally after the fall of the USSR, other than the fact they let oil piplines run to the Mediterranean.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by tycho102

And let the Sunni and Shi'a fight it out?

I've come a little around to this mode of thinking. With an Iran'd Iraq, all the other Sunni muslims would feel the pressure of their own Shi'a majorities. The UAE and Oman, in particular. Although Saudi Arabia would feel the Shi'a pressure, as well. They'd eventually start pushing into Egypt.

Whether or not any of this improves Israel's future, I am unsure.

Until now, I was expressing my opinion with my Stars and Stripes hat on.

Switching over to my blue and white cap, nothing will be good for us.

And I would rather support a Kurdistan than Turkey. Turkey is certainly no ally after the fall of the USSR, other than the fact they let oil piplines run to the Mediterranean.

I wouldn't say Turkey is not an ally altogether. I would say you cannot count on them for certain and that more Islamism and less securalism is in their future. And at some point they will no longer be an ally at all.

[kiwi_2005]

I copied paste this off a kiwi forum, theres been a big debate going on about iraq for over a year now lol. This muslim bloke goes by the name of Z0, wrote this:

osama said in reaction to 9/11:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims."

Question: Did Bin laden really say this?

[Skybird]

Who cares?

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Who cares?

Still shaking off the effects of that last virtual valium are we Skybird?

[kiwi_2005]

Who cares?

Huh, everyone ready to come forward and support the west theory but hey noone cares about the other. Is there some truth in what osama said then?

Its was just a question.

[Skybird]

i remember that video that showed osama after 9-11 returning to some chieftain's assembly and reporting on how successful "their" strike has been, and how glorious it was. as long as noone can prove that video was a fake by the evil wicked CIA, i take it as it is. It is an admittance of guilt.

It is also allowed, if not demanded, to lie and deceive the infidels, if it is for the advantage of Islam.

So I only have one question about the stuff quoted on top: "Who cares what he says?"

[kiwi_2005]

So the west never lies

:rotfl: