Article

2011-03-06 Afghanistan

Afghanistan Needs US Permanent Military Bases

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2011-03-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 But Mark Grossman, the newly appointed US Special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistain, says the United States has no intention to set up permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

"No intention to set up permanent military bases"....or anything else of a permanent nature, at least until after the 2012 elections. The liberal base would never stand for it. Defense dollars must be transitioned into free gov't cheese and votes!

Posted by Besoeker 2011-03-06 00:43|| 2011-03-06 00:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Remember, the Palestinians have lived in temporary refugee camps since 1948. So temporary at this point can mean "over 63 years". I think we can work with that definition with regard to Afghanistan, should it become necessary.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-03-06 01:25|| 2011-03-06 01:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Spot on TW. Yes the "definition" of temporary is key. There is little that would indicate "temporary" about Kandahar Air Field (KAF) or Bagram Air Field (BAF). A beautiful, sunny and crisp Sunday morning here. I can see PAK off in the distance. Soldiers are cleaning weapons and chilling out.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-03-06 01:34|| 2011-03-06 01:34|| Front Page Top

#4 As long as we have enemies in the region Pakistan,Iran,Russia and China come to mind its good to keep them on their toes or be well behaved with the threat of bases in the region!

Posted by Angeretle Snore6772 2011-03-06 06:46|| 2011-03-06 06:46|| Front Page Top

#5 The two important assets the US has in Afghanistan are Bagram AB, and the new, $100m intel center at Masar-i-Sharif, in the North.

Apparently our only other goals are keeping what's-his-name in power in Kabul, more or less, and regularly killing enough Taliban so they don't make a problem. This includes drone-zaps in Pak.

Without the backing of a conventional army, it won't turn into another Vietnam, but maybe we can squeeze a couple of decades of use out of it, before discarding it like so much greasy tissue paper.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-03-06 08:30|| 2011-03-06 08:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Jose's axiom to Murphy's Law: nothing is more permanent than that which is called temporary.

Posted by Steve White 2011-03-06 08:46|| 2011-03-06 08:46|| Front Page Top

#7 So temporary at this point can mean "over 63 years".

Heck, we were working in and living in 'temporary' buildings constructed during WWII in the 80s. One thing that happened in the Reagan administration was the ripping down of a lot of that old wood, though there is still some of it around and being utilized.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-06 09:20|| 2011-03-06 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Bases that can be supplied are much more of a threat than those that can be turned into a Dien Bien Phu. We need to turn A-stan into a client by having sea bases in a neighbor from which we can threaten to return in force. I would like to use the port of Karachi in an Indian protectorate. The problem with A-stan is there are no good ports. Make that no ports. And that's the problem. It's like trying to dominate the US from bases in West Virginia.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 09:41|| 2011-03-06 09:41|| Front Page Top

#9 A beautiful, sunny and crisp Sunday morning here. I can see PAK off in the distance.

Goodness, Besoeker, that sounds like Sarah Palin's Alaska! ;-) Be careful, my dear, and come back safely home to Mrs. Besoeker and to us.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-03-06 10:00|| 2011-03-06 10:00|| Front Page Top

#10 Beso, are you in KAF? I was there in December - nice base. I'll be down in LNK in a couple weeks for the lovely summer tour. Stay safe dude.

Posted by Broadhead6 2011-03-06 14:47|| 2011-03-06 14:47|| Front Page Top

#11 Best advice: "Avoid flying, blunt, and sharp objects. Consume nothing that is poisonous. Wear a hat. Exothermic reactions are best enjoyed in moderation. Save the last bullet for the other guy. It is better to land safely than to fly. And finally, she may look clean, but see 'hat', above."

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-03-06 18:54|| 2011-03-06 18:54|| Front Page Top

#12 I prefer to see AFPAK as Amer's 21st century "TEDDY ROOSEVELT" moment, i.e. iff Amer can't modernize AFPAK NO ONE CAN.

Unless the AFPAK Govts want to see a another nation repeat Stalin's Purges, or Mao's "Great Leap Forward" deadly pogroms.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-03-06 23:31|| 2011-03-06 23:31|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:41 Bill Clinton
23:40 Bill Clinton
23:38 Bill Clinton
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:04 Nimble Spemble
22:46 Hupose Barnsmell6744
22:25 Herman Clineck6144
22:18 anonymous2u
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:05 JT
21:50 phil_b
21:29 Frank G
21:28 Frank G
21:25 Skidmark
20:56 CrazyFool
20:52 CrazyFool
20:50 Procopius2k
20:48 CrazyFool
20:43 Nimble Spemble