US State Department official Daniel Benjamin today denied reports that the Obama Administration is seeking permanent bases in Afghanistan, saying he was unfamiliar with such reports but that they were simply untrue.
“We do not intend to have permanent bases in Afghanistan that would threaten others in the region. We’ve been very forthright about that,” insisted Benjamin at a meeting in Washington DC.
The denial comes in spite of a Guardian report citing unnamed officials confirming that the US is seeking to remain for several decades, while Afghan President Hamid Karzai only yesterday confirmed that talks are underway to keep US troops beyond the 2014 “deadline” for NATO’s war.
Other officials have suggested that the US might reach deals on “joint” bases with the Afghan government as well as agreements on permanent bases that would not be allowed to launch attacks outside the country. Either might leave Benjamin’s denial technically correct, if incredibly misleading.
6 thoughts on “State Dept Official Denies US Seeking Permanent Bases in Afghanistan”
Yehhh, right.., like there is no Iraq war and there is WMD in Iraq and there is no US base in Japan or Italy or in Germany.., and England government is not reporting to the Queen to get the Monarchs approval when things needs to done .., like Libya war and Etc. Canada is not under the control of France and England.., is a independent country.., yehhh, right. and off course Hamin Karzai is not a US puppet but he is the NATO lapdog.
oh please-I don't even know why they are bothering trying to cover it up.
The fact is that the US is in a building frenzy, constructing huge and small bases all over Afghanistan, just as it has in Iraq. The fact is that the US intends to stay in Afghanistan, and Iraq, for a long long long time. The fact is that the US has shown a penchant for building bases and stationing troops close to and circling perceived enemies and threats, i.e., Russia and Iran. You be the judge if all of this exhibits an intent to have "permanent bases … that would threaten others in the region." I think we all know the answer to this rhetorical question.
As Mj states above, IF the Pentagon was NOT planning on being there (Iraq or Afghanistan) for a very long time, it doesn't explain the massive construction underway. I would wager that the construction budget for Iraq and Afghanistan are at least triple what the pentagon is spending on direct funding on the troops stationed there. Of course, without an official budget line item breakdown of the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts, it's very hard to determine how the money spent is being divvied up – how convenient if you wanted to engage in some fiscal obfuscation.
Recent experience tells us when this administration denies something, it must be true.
Well, of course, they deny. In the meantime, they're building them.
Comments are closed.