Worst Job In the USAF…

… will soon have a new meaning: To be stationed at the "isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert" of Iraq. H-1 will be one of four bases—north, south, west and Baghdad—the US will maintain in Iraq, according to Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt in The New York Times. Though I can never bring myself to trust anybody named Thom, the article does some interesting geopolitical skylarking (about establishing pickets of "influence" stretching from the Middle East through South Asia and reducing the "footprint" in Saudi Arabia and Turkey). There's also some more detail on the open secret of Eastern European logistical support for the Iraq war.

Comments

[Thomas Luedeke]

..any every one will be permanent, proving Bush/Rumsfeld liars (again), and further inflaming the Middle East.

At least it gives them a starting point for the neocon empire dream of conquering the Middle East and the next step of invading Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and everyone but our great friends Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

[Steve]

Holy s***. I wish you freakin' Bush haters would GIVE IT A REST! When it REALLY happens, let me know. Until then, STFU.

[Steve 2]

they can't give it a rest, their "talking points" haven't come out yet telling them to.

it used to be the left (ca. Vietnam) that was constantly putting out the conspiracy theories. Then, for awhile, it was the far right (militias, "black helicopters",etc). Now, even the "moderate" left seem to have gone unhinged.

[geophile]

I don't know about the possibility of permanent bases. It might be in our long-term interest to shift away from Arabia and Turkey, militarily. I don't know how accomodating Iraq will be, but if they loved prostrating themselves at the boot of people like the Saudis and Husseins, they'll love the taste of our ass.

I'm assuming these Iraqi protesters don't represent any kind of majority, but some Iraqis are already making it clear that they want to break France's record of Fastest Reversion to Assholism following Selfless Libereration by American Forces. Someone get Guinness on the phone quick, before they miss it.

Steve the First, you've been very hostile lately. I really think I like this side of you.

[Anonymous]

...or not:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21WIRE-RUMS.html

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today that the U.S. has no plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq.

"I have never heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed," he said, emphatically denying a report in Saturday's New York Times that the U.S. was looking to set up a permanent military presence at four air bases in the country.

"The likelihood of it seems to be so low that it's never been discussed in my presence to my knowledge... it's not like we need a new place," he said.

[The Real Steve]

Steve!!!

Will not give it a rest, there are no in-betweens, either you like the guy or you don't.

Now honestly remember, over 50% of the voting population did not like the guy, but 5 judges discounted that.

So until he is removed, which we understand to be @ 26 months, just take it.

We listened to your whinning about Bill.

Its the way this game is played you nin...

[Steve]

Ah, oh real one,

Less than 50% OF THOSE WHO VOTED.

I still think Ari Fleischer (see other subject) REALLY wanted to martyr himself so the Clintonistas could stage a coup.....really.

[andrew]

Curiously, our good friends the Saudis and Pakistan have been perhaps the fiercest critics of this war in the region...and that isn't an easy bar to reach.
We need the Saudis and Pak. less after this, and are bound to loosen our ties to their odious regimes.

[flytrap]

This shows imho that we plan to be in the region for some time. Its hard not to imagine the possible ramifications of this. Further social, political and economic polerization in the ME and here as well? Whatever the outcome, this cannot be viewed as anything less then an establishment of a new political organization. A hedgemony with allegiance to entities other then those currently in peak structure levels.

[Steve]

Geo:

Thanks....I think.

[Croesus]

geophile,

Since when were America's efforts in WWII "selfless?" *chuckle* Quite frankly, America wouldn't have fought in WWII if it hadn't been in its interest to do so. Any other "benefits" were a sideshow.

[Thomas Luedeke]

Steve's response is sadly typical - if the supporters of the Iraqi invasion hear something that doesn't fit their preconceptions, out comes the ad-hominem attacks. Go to National Review and you can see twenty articles a day with that sop. I'd reply to Steve in a scathing fashion, but it really isn't wasting worth my time.

I will, however, point out that during the Clinton administration (and I'll point out as a Libertarian I despised him nearly exactly as much as Bush, for the same reasons), the Republicans were engaging in the same whine about a lying president and a permanent presence in the former Yugoslavia. Now that "their guy" is doing the same thing, it becomes OK. Note that it turned out to be true in Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and many other places. I'm ready to lay down money the same is true in Iraq, and Afghanistan....

My view is that we simply have a horribly overextended defense perimeter. And when you try to defend everything, you defend nothing. Worse, every barbarian will be up in arms. Nothing in the Middle East is worth having one single Marine, Army, Navy, or Air Force serviceman killed by some death-worshipping barbarian blowing himself up in a car, or using a surface to air missile, or whatever.

[shaban salama]

i am instrumention from egypt i have 26 years exprianc

[javier salvatierra]

Hi.mi name's javier nerique savatierra.I am 24 year old.I am aviation technician.I wold like find a job whit planes in reserve airforce or other planes in your country United States.

Thank for your time