Why would the USA build permanent military bases in Iraq, if it intends leaving?

Question

Do the math people :)

Answer 1

A place to store all the oil

Answer 2

I think someone said this already but...where did you get this? Where are these bases you are talking about? The Coalition does have bases...on former Iraqi ones. These though have not yet been marked as permanent. But despite the implications please understand that the USA still cannot build any permanent bases in Iraq unless the government of Iraq allows them to (all the USA bases on foreign soil have been approved by the host governments).

Answer 3

Did you really think a sustained war would be run out of tents?
These bases are built for our comfort while running war.
The President has said we would have some military presence to help stabilize Iraq through 2009, although greatly reduced numbers. Even in this unfriendly military time, the polls still were only 51 against bases & 47 for the bases. Congress vote yesterday was just a sham as they had supplied money to pay for bases. Now suddenly they vote that they are against the bases that they voted to pay for. Reading anti military websites will keep you misinformed.

Answer 4

Define permanent? We have base closesure of bases here in the USA that have been in service 100 years. Nothing is permanent. We have built many bases in Germany and in England that 50 years later are abandoned. We've have base in Korea that are been torn down to redploy troops away from the DMZ. Some of those bases date back to the Korean War. We left all of our bases in Saudi Arabia just a few years ago after spending millions on them. So nothing lasts permanently....

Answer 5

They don't intend to leave. Saudi Arabia has kicked us out of their country because they're pissed off at us, so we needed to establish a permanent base of operations from which to "regulate" in the middle east. Therefore, we invaded Iraq, took over part of their country, and made it into a permanent military base. It's actually very similar to what we did in Japan and the rest of Asia after WW II.

Answer 6

beforehand any usual in any conflict makes a conflict plan, the first element he needs is a map. If we were severe about the conflict on terror and we believed the international places that George Bush listed because the axis of evil, all of them border Iraq with the exception of North Korea. With bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've a wide strategic benefit in launching air strikes or particular operation missions. like it or not i imagine we are in this for the lengthy haul.

Answer 7

It's called forward deployment and we have practiced it since the early 1900's. Instead of moving entire battalions of troops during a time a crisis..we have regional bases to house troops in potential hot zones. This is why we still maintain bases in Korea..Japan..Germany..Baharain..ect. Only the US Marines deploy by Naval Ships. The airforce and army MUST rely on forward deployment to maintain a presence in the region. The troops in Iraq didn't fly directly there on a big airplane you know. They came from Turkey..Germany..Saudi..

Answer 8

Erm ... which permanent bases would they be? Do you assume that the degree of permanence of the buildings and protection that they offer indicates an intention to remain indefinitely or to provide the troops with a reasonable degree of protection and suitable living quarters? Its important when constructing an argument to base your premise on fact. Yes?

Answer 9

The U.S. isn't building permanent bases in Iraq. The premise of your question is false. You must understand that "long-term" is not the same as "permanent."

Answer 10

the us has permanent military bases everywhere, just to keep a presence there. it makes since that it should have middle eastern bases in an ally country instead of in iran or something

Answer 11

I don't believe we will ever be able to leave Iraq completely. Nor should we. We should make Iraq a state then continue to Iran and Syria.