Curiousity question...

Permanent bases? But, Andy says we're already getting out. What do we need with permanent bases? I thought we didn't elect the candidate who said we might be in Iraq for the next century.

I remember quite well what the campaign rhetoric was. While we are drawing down forces in Iraq, mostly to focus on what should have been the first priority the entire time with Afghanistan.

Speaking for myself, as someone who thinks that Iraq has been a huge waste of time, resources and especially lives, it would be unwise not to maintain a more or less permanent military presence inside of Iraq at several large US military installations.

I would think a major naval base/air station in the Basra area, maintaining and probably increasing the footprint at BIAP for the AF and a similar sized base for the Army in the greater Baghdad area. Then probably a few smaller installations in Anbar, up north in the Kuristan area and definately to the east near Iran.

The US has spilled to much blood, expended to much treasure to just up and leave Iraq considering its global locations and the strategic resources under the desert.

I will consider the situation in Iraq to be a victory when there is a much more signifigant American commercial/retail presence in Iraq. Meaning strip malls and box stores, wal mart peddeling Ipods, big macs for everyone, starbucks frappuccinos for the ladies and hopefully as many viagra commercials as Americans are subjected to.
But more importantly we need to be getting our hands on the lions share of thier oil and for cheap.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top