insurgent49 - "Why Is the US Building Permanent Bases In Iraq?" by Alaska Peace Coalition

January 26, 2007
Why Is the US Building Permanent Bases In Iraq?
by Alaska Peace Coalition, press release

“Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric... Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people.”

- Iraq Study Group

In the spirit of these fundamental democratic principles, peace activists from several Alaska communities sent a letter to the state’s congressional delegation on January 9th urging them to respond to year old questions about the US Military bases in Iraq.

Since December, 2005, the Juneau People for Peace and Justice (JPPJ) have sent several letters to Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young asking for an explanation and their position of military base construction in Iraq. Only Sen. Stevens sent a formal written reply, yet his letter did not directly address the questions posed but rather referenced other legislation related to the war. Essentially the citizens from the Juneau peace group have been ignored.

In the presentation of the proposed “New Diplomatic Offensive”, the Iraq Study Group states:

“The United States can begin to shape a positive climate for its diplomatic efforts, internationally and within Iraq, through public statements by President Bush that reject the notion that the United States seeks ... permanent military bases within Iraq.” This speaks to the heart of the very first questions raised by JPPJ one year ago.

The invasion of Iraq is approaching its fourth anniversary. During the early months of the occupation, President Bush frequently said: “We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer”. If this has been the case, why then is it incumbent upon the Iraq Study Group to call for the government at this late date to establish a clear policy not to occupy these bases permanently?

The long-term purpose of those bases, described as “in some very limited cases, permanent facilities” in the 2005 Supplemental Budget fall under the oversight responsibility of our Congress. What the U.S. is constructing with taxpayer funds in a foreign nation should be fully disclosed to the American public.

Are answers to these questions known by Congress? According to the Iraq Study Group:

· most of the costs of the war show up not in the normal budget request but in requests for emergency supplemental appropriations.

· the executive branch presents budget requests in a confusing manner, making it difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to understand

· circumvention of the budget process by the executive branch erodes oversight and review by Congress.

The U.S. Constitution established the President as the commander-in-chief. The intent of placing a civilian administration in this capacity was to remove from the matrix the inability of subordinates to question the mission. The effectiveness of the President's foreign policy relies on rigorous examination and debate by Congress. Our democracy depends on it. For almost four years it hasn’t happened.

The ultimate responsibilities for the government’s actions fall to the people. It is our duty and obligation to pursue answers to questions we deem essential to our nation’s peace and prosperity.

The Alaska Peace Coalition representing groups in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka and Homer, respectfully request that the Alaska Congressional Delegation engage in a discussion about the war that begins with “candid and forthright” responses to our questions in regard to the military bases in Iraq. We ask that a policy be established that declares America will not permanently occupy bases in Iraq, or for an explanation by our delegation why they view such a policy is not the nation’s best interest.

- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Rank and File
by Nova Stubbs

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford

The Tao
of Waitressing
by Lindsay Luckey