What the United States Is Leaving in Iraq
Published in El País
(Spain) on 7 December 2011
by David Alandete (link to original)
(Spain) on 7 December 2011
by David Alandete (link to original)
Translated from
by Pedro Garcés Satué.
Edited by Josie Mulberry.
In Iraq, 505 U.S. military bases are now at the government’s disposal. What happened then with that 2005 rumor that the United States would leave at least 14 permanent bases to act as the police of the Near East? It fell into oblivion. Today, the bases are empty and most of them have been plundered by the population. The government has reform plans for other bases, such as Camp Victory, which was Saddam Hussein’s big palace in Baghdad. The bases that are situated in strategic points such as Basra are turning into facilities previously unthinkable, like hotels.
That is correct. Camp Bucca, which was a prison base in Basra until 2009, is now a hotel. It costs 150 euros a night ($195), but do not expect the Ritz. After all, Camp Bucca was a war prison, complete with barbed wire, bars and cells. Iraqi company Kufan Group has cleaned the barracks where guards used to sleep — trailers containing rooms of six square meters (64 square feet) — and they are being offered to oil executives who are now visiting Basra for business.
Basra is an area that is rich in crude oil. It could be the region that helps Iraq to economically reemerge in the next few decades. Because of that, the military facilities that were built there by the United States are valuable loot. But, what happens in the rest of Iraq? In remote and desert areas, or impoverished towns, bases are uninhabited. Iraqis have devastated them and taken what they could. Above all, they have looted air conditioners, which are now being sold in flea markets across the country.
The state of abandon has provoked a debate here in Washington.* After all, the Pentagon is aware that it is leaving behind facilities that have cost a huge sum of money. The exact figure is $2.4 billion, according to this report from the North American government. The greatly inflated figure includes the workforce and the valuable equipment that has already come back to the United States. The leftovers that remain in Iraq are worth $400 million. They are mundane things such as latrines, barracks or trailers. After eight years of war, this is what remains behind as a gift for Iraq.
There was a lot of U.S. equipment in Iraq. Why? Some bases had airports, soccer fields, swimming pools, cinemas and shops inside. They were built as if they were to last eternally. That was precisely the rumor circulating the Capitol six years ago: President George W. Bush wanted to leave at least 14 permanent bases in Iraq to restrain both the Iranians and al-Qaida. In was only as far back as 2005 that the American Congress approved $1.2 billion to build bases. Remember: This was two years after Bush declared “mission accomplished.” With such activity, it is understandable that Democrats were suspicious of Bush’s intentions.
Bush, as far as he is concerned, denied that permanent bases were a part of his plans. According to several reports and public appearances, the generals, who are less prone to diplomatic intrigue, discreetly admitted the existence of some 14 bases that could be “enduring.” The problem, then, was determining what an “enduring” base was. Was it enduring until the end of the war, or enduring like Guantánamo in Cuba, able to last more than a century? The Pentagon was not answering that question, so the Democrats insistently asked the government.
There was a tense exchange between Steve Rothman, a Democratic congressman, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the House of Representatives in April 2006. Rice refused to specify the differences between “permanent” and “enduring,” so Rothman blurted this out:
“Calling a base in Iraq 'enduring' instead of 'permanent' doesn't change a thing… The 'enduring' bases paired with the secretary’s refusal to rule out permanent bases leads me to conclude that this President plans to keep our forces in Iraq for many years to come.”**
As expected, the problem went too far. Bush’s so-called plans did not only cause nervousness here in Washington, but also in the occupied country itself. In 2008, several lawmakers from the biggest Shiite parties in Iraq, the Islamic Supreme Council and the Islamic Dawa, accused the United States of imposing the right to maintain 58 permanent bases in that country as a non-negotiable condition to its military withdrawal. It was not 14 bases anymore, but 58. The number and the anger of the civil population kept on increasing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama, as the new head of government, tried to negotiate for some 3,000 U.S. soldiers to remain in Iraq to underpin the new government. They should stay, of course, in a base. However, Baghdad refused to grant those troops with immunity. In the end, there were neither 58 bases, nor 14, nor one. The United States is leaving now. It is just a matter of days. It is not leaving permanent or enduring bases behind. The highest profile transfer has been the one concerning Camp Victory, about which Ángeles Espinosa recently wrote. Apart from that, the presence of the United States in Iraq is almost a memory.
*Editor’s note: The author is a correspondent for El País, reporting from Washington.
**Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
That is correct. Camp Bucca, which was a prison base in Basra until 2009, is now a hotel. It costs 150 euros a night ($195), but do not expect the Ritz. After all, Camp Bucca was a war prison, complete with barbed wire, bars and cells. Iraqi company Kufan Group has cleaned the barracks where guards used to sleep — trailers containing rooms of six square meters (64 square feet) — and they are being offered to oil executives who are now visiting Basra for business.
Basra is an area that is rich in crude oil. It could be the region that helps Iraq to economically reemerge in the next few decades. Because of that, the military facilities that were built there by the United States are valuable loot. But, what happens in the rest of Iraq? In remote and desert areas, or impoverished towns, bases are uninhabited. Iraqis have devastated them and taken what they could. Above all, they have looted air conditioners, which are now being sold in flea markets across the country.
The state of abandon has provoked a debate here in Washington.* After all, the Pentagon is aware that it is leaving behind facilities that have cost a huge sum of money. The exact figure is $2.4 billion, according to this report from the North American government. The greatly inflated figure includes the workforce and the valuable equipment that has already come back to the United States. The leftovers that remain in Iraq are worth $400 million. They are mundane things such as latrines, barracks or trailers. After eight years of war, this is what remains behind as a gift for Iraq.
There was a lot of U.S. equipment in Iraq. Why? Some bases had airports, soccer fields, swimming pools, cinemas and shops inside. They were built as if they were to last eternally. That was precisely the rumor circulating the Capitol six years ago: President George W. Bush wanted to leave at least 14 permanent bases in Iraq to restrain both the Iranians and al-Qaida. In was only as far back as 2005 that the American Congress approved $1.2 billion to build bases. Remember: This was two years after Bush declared “mission accomplished.” With such activity, it is understandable that Democrats were suspicious of Bush’s intentions.
Bush, as far as he is concerned, denied that permanent bases were a part of his plans. According to several reports and public appearances, the generals, who are less prone to diplomatic intrigue, discreetly admitted the existence of some 14 bases that could be “enduring.” The problem, then, was determining what an “enduring” base was. Was it enduring until the end of the war, or enduring like Guantánamo in Cuba, able to last more than a century? The Pentagon was not answering that question, so the Democrats insistently asked the government.
There was a tense exchange between Steve Rothman, a Democratic congressman, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the House of Representatives in April 2006. Rice refused to specify the differences between “permanent” and “enduring,” so Rothman blurted this out:
“Calling a base in Iraq 'enduring' instead of 'permanent' doesn't change a thing… The 'enduring' bases paired with the secretary’s refusal to rule out permanent bases leads me to conclude that this President plans to keep our forces in Iraq for many years to come.”**
As expected, the problem went too far. Bush’s so-called plans did not only cause nervousness here in Washington, but also in the occupied country itself. In 2008, several lawmakers from the biggest Shiite parties in Iraq, the Islamic Supreme Council and the Islamic Dawa, accused the United States of imposing the right to maintain 58 permanent bases in that country as a non-negotiable condition to its military withdrawal. It was not 14 bases anymore, but 58. The number and the anger of the civil population kept on increasing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama, as the new head of government, tried to negotiate for some 3,000 U.S. soldiers to remain in Iraq to underpin the new government. They should stay, of course, in a base. However, Baghdad refused to grant those troops with immunity. In the end, there were neither 58 bases, nor 14, nor one. The United States is leaving now. It is just a matter of days. It is not leaving permanent or enduring bases behind. The highest profile transfer has been the one concerning Camp Victory, about which Ángeles Espinosa recently wrote. Apart from that, the presence of the United States in Iraq is almost a memory.
*Editor’s note: The author is a correspondent for El País, reporting from Washington.
**Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.