"Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq was always behind the 2003 invasion." -- The Independent, April 3, 2006

"The growing skyline of the US embassy in Baghdad is only the most recent indication that the US has no intention of leaving." - Kevin Zeese, April 22, 2006

* * *

Remember the spring of 2003? Back when Americans were basking in promises of "cakewalks" and flowers strewn at U.S. soldiers' feet? Saddam's statue fell, the President dressed up in his flight suit, and all was well with the world. The national mood (i.e. arrogance) reverberated on television, magazines and in newspapers. What was not to love?

Then came summer, and doubts began to fester. "They kept telling [the troops] that as soon as you get to Baghdad you would be going home," one soldier's wife told the Guardian in July, 2003. "The way home is through Baghdad, they said."

And though Bush promised troops would not remain in Iraq "for one day longer than is necessary," within weeks, officials began talking about "maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq."

At the time, Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, scoffed at Mr. Bush's promise. "This idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric," he said. "It is rubbish. We're going to be there a long time. We must reorganize our military to be there a long time."

Sadly, military families who thought "Mission Accomplished" meant troops would come home paid the ultimate price. "What are we getting into here?" one sergeant asked in June, 2003. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

Some answered that question before the war even began. Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution flatly said "we won't be leaving," while Josh Marshall reported that the WMD excuse was just a rationale for "getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind."

That agenda, as described by Bookman and Marshall, centered on creating a permanent military presence in Iraq. "Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran," Bookman wrote in Sept. 2002, well before journalists uncovered possible plans for Tehran.

Others are now sounding similar alarms. "Anyone thinking we are entering the end-game better wake up," Sen. Gary Hart recently wrote. "Our neoconservative policy makers are still willing to risk the U.S. Army in a mad Middle East imperial scheme that composed the real reason for the Iraq war in the first place."

Former Pentagon insider Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski also explained that the Pentagon has long been interested in "shifting and reshaping our global military footprint" into strategically advantageous Iraq. "We've built very massive mega-bases. . . These are permanent military bases in Iraq. We've done that in other places, as well, in the Middle East. . . I think that's a big part of it, shifting our footprint. . . we've built the bases, and we're not leaving Iraq," she said on C-SPAN's Q&A.

Some U.S. bases are so large, in fact, that they're being likened to small American towns. Camp Anaconda, near Balad, for example, encompasses 15 square miles, and features a miniature golf course, two swimming pools, and a first-run movie theater. The base at al-Asad also boasts a movie theater and swimming pool, as well as a Subway restaurant, a coffee shop, and a Hertz rent-a-car facility. Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which is currently under construction, reportedly boasts 21 buildings (including a food court, swimming poll and gym) and spans 104 acres, as opposed to the customary 10. "The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future," the Associated Press reported.

Though the press seems reluctant to ask whether or not the U.S. is constructing permanent military bases in Iraq ("American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words 'permanent,' 'bases,' and 'Iraq' should never be placed in the same sentence," Tom Engelhardt explained), with hundreds of "enduring" bases worldwide, it seems only logical that the US military would be drafting similar plans for Iraq.

"After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a foothold," Zoltan Grossman of Evergreen State College recently explained, adding that, "The only two obstacles to a geographically contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria." And with wars in Iran and Syria reportedly unofficially underway, promises of a withdrawal ring decidedly untrue.

Does this mean we're staying in Iraq longer than necessary? Consider the following:

• In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which called for the establishment of permanent military bases in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Contributors to PNAC's report included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, I. Lewis Libby and other influential members of the Bush administration. Five years later, Sen. Gary Hart began asking if PNAC's base dreams were coming true. "Are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq?," he asked, adding, "If the goal of the Project for a New American Century, as it thereafter became the Bush administration, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don't."
• In 2002, George Bush's "National Security Strategy of the United States," declared that "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops." Historian Joseph Gerson later explained that "The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come."
• In April, 2003, in an article entitled "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq," New York Times reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmidt reported that "The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region. . . " Nearly three years later, William Arkin reported that the Pentagon "has developed a ten-year plan for 'deep storage' of munitions and equipment in at least six countries in the Middle East and Central Asia to prepare for regional war contingencies," and that by 2016, "the tonnage of air munitions stored at sites outside Iraq will double from current levels."
• A month or so after the start of the war, Donald Rumsfeld began denying plans to establish enduring bases in Iraq. "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge," he said in April, 2003. On February 17, 2005, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I can assure you that we have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq" and, as late as December, 2005, he was still denying the existence of such plans. "At the moment, there are no plans for long-term bases in the country," he said, adding, "It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government.'"
• In October, 2003, Lt. Col. David (Mark) Holt discussed the billions of dollars earmarked for the construction of military bases in Iraq."Again the numbers are staggering," Holt said, regarding the contracts awarded primarily to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root. "Interesting program in the several billion dollar range," he added. The March/April 2005 issue of Mother Jones asked, "If the U.S. government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq for any longer than necessary, why is it spending billions of dollars to build 'enduring' bases?," with journalist Joshua Hammer addressing suspicions that the Bush administration's real agenda is "to turn Iraq into a permanent base of operations in the Middle East."
• In a March, 2004 Chicago Tribune article entitled "14 'enduring bases' set in Iraq: Long-term military presence planned," Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq, wondered "Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" Joost Hiltermen, of the International Crisis Group later surmised that yes, it was, a thesis backed by Paul Wolfowitz, who told Vanity Fair ". . . we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia."
• In Jan. 2005, it was reported that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system, connecting Camp Victory to other coalition bases. "This is the kind of investment that is reflective of the strategic commitment and intention to continue a military presence in Iraq." Thomas Donnelly, a senior defense policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, told the New York Sun.
• On May 21, 2005, Bradley Graham of the Washington Post reported on "plans to consolidate American troops in Iraq into four large air bases," which were initially referred to as "enduring bases," but later labeled "contingency operating bases." Sam Graham-Felsen subsequently explained that the term "contingency operating bases" is "even newer newspeak for enduring bases."
• Feb. 2006 articles in the Washington Post and UK Telegraph reported on super-sized US bases in Iraq, which are actually more like small American towns, complete with Pizza Huts, Hertz rent-a-cars and movie theaters. "These bases practically scream 'permanency,'" Tom Engelhardt wrote.
• On March 21, 2006, when President Bush said that "future presidents and future governments of Iraq" will decide how long US troops remain there, speculation regarding a permanent military presence heightened. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org, said that the Pentagon will come up with "all kinds of reasons" for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, while Sen. Gary Hart predicted that "a new Iraqi government, more or less picked by the U.S., would invite the U.S. to stay in Iraq as a stabilizing force and that we were constructing permanent military bases for this purpose, all in accordance with the original neoconservative/imperial agenda in the Middle East."
• On April 2, 2006, the London Independent ran an article entitled "US and UK Forces Establish Enduring Bases in Iraq," saying that "there are signs that coalition troops will be there for the long term." The article quoted Major Joseph Breasseale, who admitted that there will be "six consolidation bases - four of which are US." As David Francis, of the Christian Science Monitor put it, "So far, it seems clear that the Pentagon would prefer to keep its bases in Iraq. It has already spent $1 billion or more on them, outfitting some with underground bunkers and other characteristics of long-term bases." NPR later reported that "Members of Congress are becoming increasingly concerned that the United States is planning to keep permanent military bases in Iraq."

Of course anyone paying attention, as far back as the first Gulf War, could have predicted that once we ventured into Baghdad, we'd be stuck there. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney said as much, as did Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush.

History also provided a powerful guide as to what we could expect. As Hugh Pope and Peter Waldman wrote in the Wall Street Journal on March 19, 2003, (one day before Operation Iraqi Freedom began):

"Again and again, Westerners have moved into the Mideast with confidence that they can impose freedom and modernity through military force. Along the way they have miscalculated support for their invasions, both internationally and in the lands they occupy. They have anointed cooperative minorities to help rule resentful majorities. They have been mired in occupations that last long after local support has vanished. They have met with bloody uprisings and put them down with brute force."

Which brings us back to the elephant in the war room -- the notion that getting bogged down in Iraq was actually part of the plan. "Today, however, the great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into," Josh Marshall wrote in March, 2003, saying that "the White House really has in mind an enterprise of a scale, cost, and scope that would be almost impossible to sell to the American public."

Are America's new mega-bases part of "the underbelly of U.S. foreign policy" journalists wrote of before the war began? And, in light of the evidence, how can anyone dismiss reports regarding the Bush administration's agenda as the province of "full-mooners" and conspiracy theorists?

"They [the US military] appear to settling in for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," a spokesman for the Sunni Iraqi Islamic party told the Guardian in 2005. But, as Chalmers Johnson pointed out, thanks to "government secrecy," many Americans simply don't know, or care to know, that the US maintains a "vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica."

In short, Americans bought this war without fully knowing what they were paying for, and most are still not certain why we're in Iraq or how long we're staying. And though the Bush administration denies plans for permanent bases, it's important to remember that during the 2000 campaign, even as candidate George Bush publicly promised to pursue a "humble" foreign policy, he and his handlers had other plans in mind.

While Americans have been left in the dark and lied to before, this time the stakes are higher than ever. "Something bad is going to happen," one "wise man" told Seymour Hersh regarding plans for the use of nuclear weapons in Iran, an option which could instantly kill a million or more.

To make matters more surreal, former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips has underscored the role End Times theology plays in all of this, as the White House caters to those "for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny." This biblically charged powder keg is made even more explosive by rumors that President Bush sees himself as a crusader, of sorts. "The word I hear is messianic," Hersh told CNN. "[Blair] and Bush both have this sense, this messianic sense, I believe, about what they've done and what's needed to be done in the Middle East," Hersh told Democracy Now, adding, "I think [Blair] is every bit as committed into this world of rapture, as is the president."

While agnostics have also said the end is near (Bible Code author Michael Drosnin forecasts an "atomic holocaust" for 2006) biblical beliefs are beginning to align with reality. At the close of the 20th century for example, Professor James Tabor said that one of the signs for "the beginning [of] the end" was having "some military power controlling the Middle East. . . "

"The Book of Revelation is somewhat like a downhill slide," he told PBS' Frontline. "Once you have an identification of your main characters. . . .and some military power controlling the Middle East and finally the whole world, then it moves very rapidly."

"But," he added "presently on the world scene, none of those things exist."

That was before the 2000 election, however. Before George W. Bush.