Cooperative Security Locations, Not Permanent Just Enduring

The US military has a number of terms that it uses to describe its various kinds of military installations. One of these terms is a Cooperative Security Location. According to Global Security, a Cooperative Security Location (CSL) is a host-nation facility with little or no permanent US presence. CSLs will require periodic service, contractor and/or host nation support. CSLs provide contingency access and are a focal point for security cooperation activities. They may contain propositioned equipment. CSLs are: rapidly scalable and located for tactical use, expandable to become a Forward Operating Site (FOS), forward and expeditionary.

The Department of Defense has released a FY 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification (pdf.) presentation outlining its proposed expenditures. Some are curious, a few are disconcerting.

The FY 2010 Base budget includes $46 million for a cooperative security location at Palanquero Air Base in Colombia.

This is news to Colombians. Though Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos broached the subject of stationing a base in Colombia back in February, that trial balloon did not float. Colombians remain opposed to any US military presence in the country.

Significant investment at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, a forward operating site for which responsibility has been moved from CENTCOM to AFRICOM.

It looks like AFRICOM, which remains homeless or perhaps better put awaiting a home in temporary quarters in Stuggart, Germany, is going to get rammed down hapless Djibouti.

The Department's objective is to develop a network of Forward Operating Sites (FOSs) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs) to support current and future operations in the Gulf and Central Asia. The Department plans significant investments at the following enduring locations:

* Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, and Al Mussanah Air Base, Oman,
both of which are Cooperative Security Locations, and
* Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, a Forward Operating Site

Enduring? Just what does the DoD mean by that?

These notions of a far-flung empire are killing this Republic. Never mind the cost. Military adventurism undermines democracy at home.

Tags: FY 2010 Budget, US Foreign Policy, US Militarism (all tags)



The Sun Never Sets...

I share your concern but does a base with 'little or no permanent US presence' really constitute imperial ambition?  I suppose it does, really.  In the case of Camp Le Monier, ironically a former French Foreign Legion outpost, the US has maintained a presence there since 2001 for 'demining, humanitarian, and counter-terrorism efforts.'  Not to mention hosting the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) and apparently an aerie of the CIA's Predator drones.

I take your point about the demilitarisation of US foreign policy generally but if we are sincere in that effort we will have to forego outrage in the event the US military is in no position to do much about some international incident due to policy, lack of resources or logistical constraints.  I can see this issue from both sides but suggest we have a long way to go bringing US public opinion along this particular path, in the meantime the US military is going to fulfil their mission profile as best they can, with a PX and a swimming pool thrown in for good measure.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-10 10:45PM | 0 recs
Perhaps the most cogent speech made

by a US President in the last 100 years was Eisenhower's final one: ocuments/indust.html

How many have actually read the entire speech, most only know the famous quote?

For example, Ike was already criticising a Bush/Cheney style military diplomacy:

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Here is the actual passage, and it STILL remains a warning we HAVE ignored, to our peril:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Interesting the word used there, Liberty.

That our industrial military machine supposed for our SECURITY would threaten our liberty?

I wonder what Ike would think of the Patriot Act?

Or of Torture?

Also, according to his son, Ike actually wanted to warn

Beware the Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex, as he also saw how congress critters could use military financing to bring home the bacon....

The man who lead the greatest of all wars knew, he had seen a global war machine and it's consequences.

There is a famous (perhaps fictional) legend of Ike riding with Kennedy in a limo, and Kennedy asking if he had seen the movie "The longest day" about D-day.

Ike remarked "I saw it once in person. That was enough."

So said the last truly great Republican president, and perhaps the last truly great Republican period....

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-11 07:45AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads