Iraq bases spur questions over US plans

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Mar 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4834032.stm


    Other shocking revelations - Christmas falls on the 25th of December , and the British Army does more with even less :roll:
     
  2. I don't see the US making a permanent base in Iraq. It's just too dangerous for a routine posting.

    NTM
     
  3. I can see a Permanent base state, because it'll be a lot less dangerous and exposed than Saudi Arabia will be in the next decade, or god forbid , an even harder-liner than the current incumbent in Tehran gets in.

    I don't get it , all they had to say was "We are reinforcing till we leave , at which time, the Government of Iraq has kindly agreed to pay a sum towards the cost of refurbishing their facilities. Furthermore, we are entering a mutual defence pact with Iraq , in case the Iranians get any ideas" or some such.
     
  4. I was told in late 2002, by some US colleagues over a beer or two, that a pressing reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was their likely expulsion from Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi (wonder why...) and the need for some new "real estate" in the region.
     
  5. I dunno - seems like a very expensive way to gain real estate.


    Anyway, I thought everyone agreed Iraq was due to Saddam's WMD?

    Tricam.
     
  6. I'll wager they have permission to use Kuwait for quite a whiles to come.

    When I arrived in Balad/Anaconda in 04, the base was described to me as being the one from which the last American serviceman would fly out. It just doesn't seem efficient to have a base in a place where it's unsafe to just go down the road to the shop.

    NTM
     
  7. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I thought they were already expanding their Kuwaiti bases with these being the long term middle east bases. Do they not have one of their overseas fwd log bases (can't remember the proper titles) moving there too?
     
  8. Flip of this put forward by some american commentators is that US went to war to
    a) prove to the saudis it could operate unilaterally in the region without their support,thereby indirectly making the saudis toe the line on controlling their own islamic insurgency.
    b) prove to the arab world a willingness to take casualties in pursuit of policy aims.

    to some degree this seems true/has worked, house of saud needed US power to underpin it, and house of saud was rather overplaying their hand with how much the US needed them in the region. US not solely reliant on them and wooing other regional countries has made saudi crack down on its internal problems, wahabiist in origin.
     
  9. I am inclined to believe that!

    The US 'Twin Pillars' Policy is still dictating how they deal with the Middle East...
     
  10. The longer term aspiration of the septics is to maintain 3 larger bases in Iraq.
     
  11. Even if the Americans do try and establish long term bases, I just feel that they will go the way of the British bases. The bases will prove to be a long term running sore in the Iraqi national mind and eventually the americans will be forced to leave.
     
  12. As long as Syria and Iran pursue their current politices, there will be a US presence in Iraq. We still have bases in Europe and Asia over 60 years after WW2 why should Iraq be any different ?
     
  13. "We still have bases in Europe and Asia over 60 years after WW2 why should Iraq be any different ?"

    Yes how true.

    "Even if the Americans do try and establish long term bases, I just feel that they will go the way of the British bases. The bases will prove to be a long term running sore in the Iraqi national mind and eventually the americans will be forced to leave.

    Agreed, a "Long Term Running Sore"

    john
     
  14. Fact
    speculation

    Anyone that believed this would be a "quickie" is a moron at best and a brain dead fcuk at worst. I see at the least 40,000 troops staying in Iraq for at least 20 years. The 2 ID was the speedbump to Seoul, Iraq will be the speedbump to Tel Aviv.