US to Build Three Military Bases in Kurdistan Region

26.09.2014

BasNews, Erbil

Pentagon is planning to build three different military bases in Iraqi Kurdistan region in a near future.

According to Kurdish sources, Washington wants to build more military presence in the region in the wake of recent Islamic State (IS) militants against Kurdistan region in northern Iraq.

BasNews has learned through a close source from the matter, that United States to build three military bases in Erbil and around the Kurdistan Capital.

One of the Military bases would be in Erbil, another one would be in Hareer military base a town north of Erbil and the third one would be in Atrush a town close to Dohuk, near the Turkish border, according to BasNews sources.

The Atrush base would be used for Apache Helicopters, as it flown in and out from the base.

However, the source that spoke on condition of anonymity, that none of the US military bases would be located in or close to Sulaimaniyah the second largest city in Kurdistan region, and close to Iranian border, due to presence of Iranian army and soldiers in the city.

Earlier this week, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby talked about the possibility of US military base in Iraqi Kurdistan in a near future.

‘I don’t want to mix Incirlik (US military base in Turkey) and Erbil. In Erbil, we have a mutual military operation center as US President Barack Obama revealed, where we have stationed drones and other weapons,’ said Kirby.

‘Erbil is important because it is close to the areas of northern Iraq that IS militants have controlled and wish to keep. For this reason Erbil is important. Since we decided to open military air bases in Erbil and Baghdad, their importance has become clearer day by day,” added Kirby.

Since the start of IS insurgent attacks against Iraqi Kurds, US warplanes has bombed the terrorist groups continually and Kurdish Peshmerga forces has been able to stop the Jihadi group advances.

Oh, so we’re going to fret over this too?

Seems like every positive step towards countering ISIS is bewailed by a certain segment of FReepers -the ISIS booster club.

These basis will require a SOFA agreement for construction and operation. This indicates Baghdad has condoned their construction in the Kurdish region or delegated authority to the Kurds to approve it. They are unlikely to be temporary bases and should serve to counter Sunni and Shia supremacy groups in the region while supporting the autonomy of the Kurds.

This was anticipated. I expect Baghdad my also provide the Balad airbase to maintain their influence with the US.

My failing memory denies me again ... Haven;t we walked away from bases established already ? If so ... we build, become effective then walk away to build again under the banner of something new is about to happen ? Or am I nuts AND old ?

There's a big difference - the bases we are closing cannot be used to aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. These new bases could serve all these purposes...

“the bases we are closing cannot be used to aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. These new bases could serve all these purposes...”

We didn’t close those bases. They were turned over to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi Army and government did not “aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. Perhaps you’ve overlooked the thousands of IA troops killed after their bases were overrun?

And what if the new US bases are overrun? Will you also posthumously accuse it’s defenders that they were actually there to ‘aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead? You probably would.

“...I can’t see for the life of me where I or trebb have ever implied we’re pro terrorist or ISIS or whatever burr is under your saddle.”

What part of “aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead” don’t you understand? He’s saying our former Iraqi bases and possibly the new bases are actually there to aid the terrorists! You know, the terrorists who overran the bases and executed its defenders and the ones were now bombing? Because that’s how we make sure they ‘come out ahead’ -by bombing them. He’s a friggin nut, likes lots of other pro-ISIS on this board. It’s the same fruitcake argument used in Oct 2001: “The US helped to create OBL and the Taliban, what right do we have to bomb them?” Bunch of frickin nuts!

“the bases we are closing cannot be used to aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. These new bases could serve all these purposes...” We didn’t close those bases. They were turned over to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi Army and government did not “aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. Perhaps you’ve overlooked the thousands of IA troops killed after their bases were overrun? And what if the new US bases are overrun? Will you also posthumously accuse it’s defenders that they were actually there to ‘aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead? You probably would.

You misinterpreted my tongue-in-cheek remarks - they were aimed at Obama. I will never impugn our military - I spent 24 years in uniform and am finishing off another 15 as a DOD civilian who works directly with/for our military - 39 years of watching us go from post-Viet Nam to the absolute mess that they are making of the military via all the social engineering they are foisting off on our warriors.

“...I can’t see for the life of me where I or trebb have ever implied we’re pro terrorist or ISIS or whatever burr is under your saddle.”

I already responded to Justa (fill in the blank) about his sorry misinterpretation of my comments which were aimed at Obama, not our military. Maybe he will understand enough to engage his brain before pounding his keyboard.

“I already responded to Justa (fill in the blank) about his sorry misinterpretation of my comments which were aimed at Obama, not our military.”

There is absolutely no such distinction in your posting other than after the fact claims of sarcasm -which it clearly was not.

Am I to believe that your comment: “the bases we are closing cannot be used to aid and abet the terrorists and run clandestine ops to insure they come out ahead. These new bases could serve all these purposes...” actually applies to Obama and not the US military or is somehow just sarcasm?

Your argument is ridiculous like the whole lot of the ‘we-created-ISIS-so-how-can-we-bomb-them’ crowd.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.