Comments on: American Bases on Algerian Soil: Really? Why Now?

By: John Ledbetter

John Ledbetter — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:56:35 +0000

The Air Force had decided to have strategic bases in Algeria at one time. The real fact is that it lack real value because of it’s location in relation to present day objects. The conflict involving the type of population and the party that Algeria has played a host to presents a difficulty in maintaining a posture that allows members to enter and exit the country with some degree of safety and conduct. I assume that the United States has some intention keeping it’s holdings of areas that have been held for Air Force. but it seems that as the cold war has ended the value of Algeria as a real region to commit to a large scale operation has sharply declined.

By: Abu-al-Husam

Abu-al-Husam — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:03:08 +0000

Very well put – I was thinking of how to reply to his hogwash, and I don’t think I could have done so better than you have here. If I might add, you quoting a U.S. General and linking their report doesn’t make you seem biased at all. And we all know how truthful the U.S. military is.

By: CHARKA

CHARKA — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:02:58 +0000

Omar enuf and well said!

They are just trying to improvise political corridors by which they justify that call of having such a base on their soil. On the other hand they keep on bashing Morocco about he western Sahara issue along with Egypt claiming that Egyptians are a bunch of Jews-kissers!
Its pathetic anyways to manipulate facts in ways that would justify their ill favored stance.

By: First Censored Political Website in Algeria « Algerian Review

First Censored Political Website in Algeria « Algerian Review — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:56:16 +0000

[...] stations and a staunch critic of the government. Last month he broke the rumour that Algeria has accepted temporary American military stations, a rumour vehemently denied by the Algerian state and AFRICOM – this is probably what annoyed [...]

By: Non-Arab Arab

Non-Arab Arab — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:44:35 +0000

Dear Mr. Crawley,

As a US citizen, your non-denial denial just reminds me of how easily fellow citizens such as yourself are willing to turn yourselves into official liars. But then given the way the military has come to see communication as a weapon instead of an instrument of honesty, I find it no surprise to see these Orwellian statements. Or maybe Clintonian is a better comparison – it depends on what your definition of the word “is” is eh? Or in this case what your definition of the word “accurate” is? I’ve spent enough time inside enough branches of the USG to understand these are the words bureaucrats and spokespeople use when they want to lie while appearing to tell the truth. Your pattern of lies is all too blatant and obvious, you are a poor propagandist.

By: AFRICOM Comment on Bases Rumour « Algerian Review

AFRICOM Comment on Bases Rumour « Algerian Review — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:09:10 +0000

[...] is the text of the comment in full, as posted in the previous [...]

By: Vince Crawley

Vince Crawley — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:41:00 +0000

I just ran across this discussion on your blog.

There are some media reports of a deal between Algeria and the U.S. for temporary use of bases in Algeria. These reports aren’t accurate.

For more info, I invite you to read AFRICOM commander General William Ward’s news conference transcript from December 3 in Algiers, posted on the http://www.africom.mil website: http://bit.ly/5ouvZX

Quotes include:
“I did not come here with any request to put troops in the Sahel to combat terrorism and I have no plans to do so.”

“[T]here are no plans to conduct that type of training or exercises here in Algeria.”

The United States is not conducting any combat operations in the Sahel, to include Algeria or any of its neighboring countries.

Respectfully,
Vince Crawley
U.S. Africa Command Public Affairs
http://www.africom.mil

By: North African blogs « The Gulf blog

North African blogs « The Gulf blog — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:23:58 +0000

[...] stumbled upon this new Algerian blog which looks to be the business. There’s an excellent post on the rumor of the US setting up a military base in the country which is followed up by some [...]

By: Houwari

Houwari — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:23:06 +0000

Wahid, Thanks for the comment – I’d love to have some reading about the strategy in the Nigerian Delta . I don’t doubt that the US always had plans to have some involvement there, but how close are are they to realising this (especially that the hawks in the pentagon are parking for a while) and how necessary is it for them to use an Algerian base?

By: Houwari

Houwari — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:20:14 +0000

Thanks for your comment Madani. You’ve just shifted my reading list -I’ve meant to read Anger of the Dispossessed for a while, but it’s at the forefront now.

My impression has been that these were rumours. It will be interesting to see how consistent the various accounts are.

By: Madani

Madani — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:02:50 +0000

I’m sure he’s right, but he’s by no means the first to report this:

“In private, though, some US officials have confirmed the existence of at least one operational base in southern Algeria that fits this profile.” – Yahia H. Zoubir, “The United States: Islamism, Terrorism, and Democracy”.

“The establishment of a US military base at Tamanrasset, the administrative capital of the extreme south, was cloaked in secrecy, lest it provoke uproar. However, flight records of planes reveal that two US military flights, transporting 100 US Special Forces personnel and their dogs, landed at the base on 16 February 2006, followed by a third flight, carrying surveillance and listening equipment on the same day.” (Algeria: Anger of the Disposessed – Martin Evans and John Philips)

By: wahid farid

wahid farid — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:22:06 +0000

Mr Zitout is absolutely right, and this shows how closely he is in monitoring the situation in Algeria.
When Central Com in Doha, Qatar was created, no one was predicting that the US will use it to wage not one but two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), and it is for the same purpose they are setting up the Africom project.
According to Daniel Volman of the The African Security Research Project in Washington, D.C., The US is securing Permanant deals with all African nations -and mainly the Sahelian ones- to allow the US army Tomporarily use every african country military facilities (casernes, bases, barracks..etc) in case they need them. The US think they will need those bases for an eventual military invasion of the Nigeria Delta which is now regareded as the New Gulf for its OIL, and which has now become the most strategic for the USA according to Dick Cheney report.
The question we have to ask, ” When They gain a foothold, they cannot be stopped”, as they american proverb states. Once they are settled in any country, who can ask theme to get out? the Generals? no of course, especially as they are co-operating with them in the Private Security companies business in the Sahara and elsewhere in Algeria.

By: Kal

Kal — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:47:39 +0000

It was ABC. There’s also a CIA station, which was formally and unceremoniously revealed earlier this year.

I wouldn’t trust Zitout on the base(s) either though. The three reasons (or conditions) Aljazeera list seem like fantasies — the Sahara and Algeria getting any set of useful weapons from the US especially. The third idea greatly overestimates US influence in Europe (from what I know). Plus, (Houawari and Alle, you probably saw this too), but General Ward’s interview on Algerian state TV was rough if not hostile. That could be part a rouse or it could be because the Algerians actually think AFRICOM is a stupid idea and don’t see it as being nearly as beneficial for them as some Americans are trying to sell it as being. If the story about the base is true, the DRS is getting sloppy at keeping secrets!

By: omar

omar — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:19:27 +0000

I like the arguments that the algerians are putting here….. it shows how much they are in denial & bunch of Hippocrates!!!!! I guess this base is to liberate Gaza ha??

By: Houwari

Houwari — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:13:08 +0000

I’m not sure that having American troops training Algerian ones in Algerian bases is operationally equivalent to having an American base. The latter implies independently using the base logistically, as well as some possible mandate for the Americans to go and carry the operations that they want in an autonomous way, even if in a limited form. The former is standard military cooperation of the type that armies engage in around the world and the Algerian navy and air force in particular participate in various places, most often in the Mediterranean – the authorities have not been shy about this last, they routinely announce navy/air force cooperation on the shores of Algiers, and foreign ships have been docking on the port of Algiers. The announcements can be considered a form of propaganda vs Morocco.

On the other hand, to my knowledge the country has so far been resistant to the idea of Americans carrying missions on their own, or participating in missions that the Algerians supposedly plan and perform.

By: alle

alle — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:18:22 +0000

I don’t think this Zitout fellow seems very credible, and the “revelation” is apparently simply that Quds Press has picked up on one of his statements, which he makes all the time. But that doesn’t mean there’s no base in Algeria. There’s been a lot of talk about Algerian special forces being stationed in the south of Algeria. They’re probably there to help train and aid the Algerian troops under some sort of cooperative arrangement, not as a full-out base, but whether that counts is mostly beside the point — the authorities haven’t been admitting to that either. That there have been special forces in the Algerian south is actually beyond dispute: an American tv channel even made a report filming there, although I can’t recall which one. It can be found via Google.