You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan/South Asia
US eyes military base in western Afghanistan
2004-12-06
As Iran moves closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, the Pentagon has started eyeing construction of a new military base near the Iran border in western Afghanistan. American officials confirmed yesterday to The New York Sun that the military has begun scouting out an area in the Holang desert area of the Herat province within 20 miles of the Iran border.
That'd be why they had to move Ismail Khan on to more lucrative pickings greener pastures.
Two administration sources familiar with the plan said the base would be largely for the Afghan army but that American aircraft would probably be deployed there as well.
Next year's headline: "Afghans take Sistan-Baluch as Americans move on Qom"?
The development could give America and its allies more military options should the president decide to use force to delay or still the Persian nuclear program. In many ways, American forces have effectively encircled Iran, projecting power not only from a coalition base in Kirkuk, northern Iraq, but also from military facilities in Uzbekistan. Those facilities were initially leased for Operation Enduring Freedom shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Washington area. In addition, the American Navy still patrols the Persian Gulf sealanes, making it possible to bring an aircraft carrier into those shallow waters off the coast of the Islamic republic.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#11  Huh?
Posted by: Hank   2004-12-06 5:38:25 PM  

#10  So the order you take them out is 1) Russia, 2) Syria, 3) Saudis, and then 4) Iraq? Do you secure Iraq first - perhaps wait a couple odf weeks after the election, then start on the above? Or perhaps just get going now? There is no great necessity for troops in western europe, so you could use them.

Maybe the bunker-busting nukes (pre-set for Iran and N. Kor sites) should be accelerated.
Posted by: Ishmael   2004-12-06 5:37:40 PM  

#9  Let's see...that be Zarqawi's old digs before fleeing Afganistan for transit through Iran.

How Iranic...
Posted by: Capt America   2004-12-06 4:54:28 PM  

#8  Take out Syria and we have several fine ports to use.Totally unrelated:any gamers out there that have beat Splinter cell I could use some help.Embasy2:how do I get the Colonel to activate his pc?I have already interogated him and he still won't activate his pc.Shoot me an e-mail instead of eating up Fred's bandwidth: w_r_manues@yahoo.com
Posted by: raptor   2004-12-06 3:56:55 PM  

#7  There are several problems on moving on Iran. The biggest is the Russians. Second is supplying attacking forces. We can't do that through Afghanistan, and there are no decent Indian Ocean ports at all. Bandar Abbas is the closest thing to a port capable of sustaining heavy combat operations, and it's in the narrowest portion of the Persian Gulf. Two other major problems are Syria and Saudi Arabia, neither of which would be happy with a US attack on Iran. We may need to dispose of those two obstacles before we can bring the jaws together on the Iranian mullahs. Taking out Saudi Arabia would also cut a huge amount of funding for the jihadiboomers.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2004-12-06 1:39:55 PM  

#6  So I am, Sharon. Thank you. Apologies, Jabba.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-06 12:06:04 PM  

#5  You are mixing up US forces in Iraq with Iraqi forces in Iraq.
Posted by: Sharon in NYC   2004-12-06 12:04:24 PM  

#4  Rumsfeld wanted a much bigger Iraq force in the war, but was turned down by State.
I thought it was the Pentagon who wanted a larger force, but Rummy turned them down. And State didn't want to invade at all, but just talk them to death.
Posted by: Steve   2004-12-06 10:37:31 AM  

#3  no links, but I've heard that multiple times on the news - not that that would make it true, but just to share.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-06 9:44:56 AM  

#2   Rumsfeld wanted a much bigger Iraq force in the war, but was turned down by State.

That's the first time I've read that. Do you have any links?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-06 9:32:03 AM  

#1  We should set up multiple bases on the Iranian border in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We should invite young Iranians to get across the border to these bases and join up for training to liberate their own country.

Rumsfeld wanted a much bigger Iraq force in the war, but was turned down by State. We should have been training Iranians in these bases since the fall of Baghdad. Let's roll.
Posted by: Jabba the Nutt   2004-12-06 9:24:02 AM  

00:00