Iraq bases spur questions over US plans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4834032.stm

The Pentagon has requested hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funds for military construction in Iraq, fanning the debate about US long-term intentions there.

The money will add to an existing bill of $1.3bn for military construction in the Middle East and South Asia - primarily Iraq and Afghanistan - in the last five years.

Much of the 2006 emergency funding is earmarked for beefing up security and facilities at just a handful of large airbases in Iraq.

This has prompted some to wonder whether the US has plans to maintain a permanent military presence - something the government has repeatedly denied.

This is just one example of how it's out in the open in the mainstream media:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html
Sunday, May 15, 2005

Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal

By ERIK LEAVER
SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

<snip>
A year ago, President Bush boldly said: "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America." Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances, the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.

</snip>

I have read elsewhere that one of the first priorities after the invasion was to start establishing 14 permanent US bases in Iraq. Could be one of the reasons that the Bush administration let so much looting go unanswered. Let's face it, only the oil fields were protected at that point.

b_b