In recent weeks, the administration has gone on a PR offensive
claiming they do not seek permanent bases in Iraq, even removing
a “security guarantee” from its “Declaration
of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship.”
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense
Secretary Robert Gates wrote in the Washington Post, “nothing
will authorize permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we
nor Iraqis want).”
But this rhetoric has not been implemented into action. In
January, President Bush issued a signing statement allowing
him to disregard a provision in the Defense Authorization Act
banning permanent bases in Iraq. This week, the administration
agreed to a “pause” in the rate of withdrawal.
Today, White House Press Secretary revealed how misleading
the administration’s rhetoric on permanent bases is, arguing
the White House does not view any U.S. military installations
overseas as being “permanent”:
“The United States, where we are, where we have bases,
we are there at the invitation of those countries. I’m
not aware of any place in the world — where we have
a base — that they are asking us to leave. And if they
did, we would probably leave,” said spokeswoman Dana
Perino. […]
Top aides to US President
George W. Bush have countered that the strife-torn country’s
government could ask US forces to leave at any time, meaning
that bases are not technically “permanent.”
(Article continues below)
The U.S. has roughly 700 overseas bases in about 130 countries,
many for decades. For example, U.S. forces have been stationed
in Japan, Germany, and South Korea since post-World War II.
The White House’s rhetoric echoes that of Sen. John McCain
(R-AZ) who frequently lists the presence of U.S. bases abroad
to bolster his case for a 10,000 year occupation of Iraq.
Perino’s comments suggest that the White House’s
public statements that it opposes “permanent bases”
in Iraq is just a game of semantics.
