U.S. Builds World's Largest Embassy In Iraq

If there was ever any doubt about the commitment that the United States has made in Iraq, you don't need to look any further than the new Mega-Embassy in Iraq. While reporters have been asking for withdrawal time-lines, the United States has been busy building a stronghold. If size is any indication of importance then this must be the most important place in the world for the United States. The new embassy is 6 times bigger than the U.N. headquarters in New York. Seeing how the embassy won't be completed until 2007, it looks as if the U.S. is planning on staying in Iraq for some time.



I haven't seen much talk of this place, but you have to be curious about what all is going on there. What are the plans for this fortress-embassy? As the article stated this embassy is 104 acres while most new construction of this type ranges around 10 acres. You're not going to tell me that the United States is going to pull out of Iraq anytime soon.

The fact that they are trying to complete this by 2007 is also an interesting note. It looks as if the Bush administration is wanting to get this site up and running before the next administration has any say-so in the matter.


Related News Links:
www.usatoday.com

[edit on 7-5-2006 by asala]

I've heard it rumored that the United States wants a solid military presence in the Middle East in order to have a faster response time in the event of Chinese actions in that hemisphere.

The construction of a 'mini Washington' would somewhat support that idea.

NC

Already posted and moved here.
embassy

Boy would I love to get my beady little eyes on those construction contracts. Something that size has to be broken up into sections and I'm sure there's a few to spread around the Hallibubbas, Inc.

If the subcontracts are going to locals though, the Iraqis may be pacified enough and grateful for the job opportunities. At the same time, I can see satellite companies sprouting up that will funnel the money back to good ole Funnel, Inc... a subarm of the War Machine.


Edit: Oops, guess not.. Arab payback time:

Local residents are bitter that the Kuwaiti contractor has employed only foreign staff and is busing them in from a temporary camp nearby.

timesonline

...restaurants offering delicacies from favourite US food chains

US food chains offer delicacies? Surely the reporter jests. More like Hallibubba scarfed up some franchises with the blessings of the damned.


[edit on 7-5-2006 by psyopswatcher]

Bechtel is a major contractor for this. This is the same company that built the PC2 petrochemical plant outside of Baghdad in 1989 (hmmm, after the Kurd gassing in 1988). No wonder Rummy was so happy to shake hands with Saddam in 1983. No wonder Nixon called him the "Ruthless Little Bastard".

pretty amazing stuff...

i wonder what the "terrorists" think about this...

i can see the "terrorists" attacking this place real soon...

Just thought I should add the link to an older posts of mine:

$592 Million US Embassy In Baghdad Under Construction

Blood, Sweat & Tears: Asia’s Poor Build U.S. Bases in Iraq

Bad Move. Looks like the same guy who forgot to make his first job in Baghdad in 2003, the tear-down of Abu Ghraib is in charge of this monstrosity. Say VP Cheney or the Oberfuhrer.

posted by dbates
If there was ever any doubt about the commitment that the Bush Administration has made in Iraq, you don't need to look any further than the new mega-Embassy in Iraq. While reporters ask for withdrawal time-lines, the US has been busy building a stronghold. The new embassy is 6 times bigger than the U.N. hq in NYC. Seeing how the embassy won't be completed until 2007, it looks as if the U.S. is planning on staying in Iraq for some time. [Edited by Don W]

Now all America’s adversaries have to do is rent a couple apartments across the way and set up telephoto lense and electronic listening devices. They can zero in the mortars and rockets for easy targeting when needed.

Why put so many eggs in one basket? Why not one build moderate size embassy where you will not furnish the opposition an easy target? Then, you could located your spies in consulates in Mosel, Basra and Fallujah , sort of out of sight, out of mind. Same square footage, but not one easy target.

I wonder how many jail cells they have in the basement? How many torture chambers?

The fortress-like compound beside the Tigris River will be the largest of its kind in the world, 2 X + the size of Vatican City’s 43 acres. Its own defense force, self-contained power and water . . the new U.S. Embassy is cloaked in secrecy as is the ministate in Rome. As the article stated this embassy is 104 acres while most new construction of this type ranges around 10 acres. The fact they are trying to complete this by 2007 is also interesting. It looks as if the Bush administration is wanting to get this site up and running before the next administration has any say-so in the matter.

Well, actually, it might turn out to be attractive to Time-Warner and a branch of Madame Tussaud’s Was Museum of Torture and so on. We might actually get to unload it for a profit! But hey, it’s more China’s problem than it is ours. (They furnished the money.)

Well, after you destroy the country's government and attempt to "rebuild" it from scratch, it's hard to just leave. Removing the military presence in Iraq would cause the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to pretty much engage in a civil war to the death; The U.S. took the thing that kept "peace" between them, Saddam Hussein, and a result, it will be their duty to build a government that can deal with the intrareligious conflict, or eliminate the conflict all together; which as you can image, might take a long time.

And as you said, there is always the American need for a strong military presence anywhere they can get their hands on.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Omniscient]

Originally posted by donwhite
Why put so many eggs in one basket? Why not one build moderate size embassy where you will not furnish the opposition an easy target? Then, you could located your spies in consulates in Mosel, Basra and Fallujah , sort of out of sight, out of mind. Same square footage, but not one easy target.

Embassy compounds have been the new trend for quite some time. I posted the following in a thread months ago about this very same subject of the Iraqi compound:

Originally posted by missed_gear
Little to no attention (very little press) was given to the new US Embassy lands purchased and compound recently built in Armenia, and the new compound is open and currently scheduled for further expansion. The total land area purchased for the compound is 9 hectares, which currently makes it the largest US State Department land purchase abroad. The newest building is to have cost and estimated to US$70+ million.

Link w/quick info.

Direct Link To Armenian Embassy Mission (info)

The regional diplomatic benefits to these large autonomous compounds are very numerous as they house many international social service agencies (not necessarily just those of the US), speed information processing/decision making, provide top medical care for the residents (which is usually shared), security, education, libraries…. It is not always about “jail cells” and “torture chambers”


mg

Originally posted by donwhite
Why put so many eggs in one basket? Why not one build moderate size embassy where you will not furnish the opposition an easy target?

It would be a security nightmare to have a set up like that, with many sections scattered around the city.

To add on to what MG said, here's a post of mine from a few months back.

Originally posted in Souljah's thread.

Posted by SportyMB:
Many current embassies have buidlings, offices and everything else you can think of scattered all over the city. The motorpool, eletric/gas facilities, gym, auditorium, health offices, and other agencies such as USAID (which is a large operation and agency) etc...etc... can all be in the same location and not have to worry about leasing 5 different buidlings and or entire hotel floors to use as office and work space.

[edit on 7/5/2006 by SportyMB]

Sweet Jesus! I was driving by the American Embassy in Tokyo in 1953. It was also Gen of the Army MacArthur's HQ for the UN Korea Police Action. It was on a corner lot about 600 feet by 600 feet and contained one large pre-war mansion converted to our use plus a small number of out building behind the main house. The lot had a low stone fence about 3 feet, all around it for security. No guards or MPs visible. It was in an upscale neighborhood, a few blocks from the Imperial Palace. Running the Occupation. Running the War. All that work done in such a small place! How did they do it?

posted by SportyMB

posted by donwhite]
Why put so many eggs in one basket? Why not build one moderate size embassy where you will not furnish the opposition an easy target?

It would be a security nightmare to have a set up like that, with many sections scattered around the city. Many current embassies have building, offices and everything else you can think of scattered all over the city. The motor pool, electric gas facilities, gym, auditorium, health offices, and other agencies such as USAID which is a large operation, etc . . etc . . can all be in the same location and not have to worry about leasing 5 different building and or entire hotel floors to use as office and work space. [Edited by Don W]

Well, how about a “bad dream” instead of a nightmare? The Embassy compound, if a square, would be 2100 feet on a side. 2/5ths of a mile in each direction. Sure, like the China Wall, you can keep the riffraff out, but it will become the focus of anti-American demonstrations and the symbol of Imperial America. It will become a target for any opposition to the US and to any Iraqi government that supports the US. It will get a name and it will be disdainfully referred to around the world as an example of American excess.

Seriously, we need an outpost in Mosul, a large city close to Turkey, and Basrah, another large city in the southern oil producing region. Under Brits adm, we might not have too much baggage there. A much smaller one at ar Rutbah near the Syrian border would also be wise. And I’d want two separate facilities in Baghdad. The main facility and a second smaller facility. This would keep the America “watchers” guessing.

In this humongous Embassy, we’ll have between 10,000 and 15,000 permanent staff. This is so large the Maximum Leader will not be able to know his troops. In my plan, each secondary or consulate, would be 200-300 strong, a size small enough the leader can maintain a personal relationship with each person. The Baghdad main building would necessarily house 1,500-2,000 in my scheme, at the verge of being too large for one man (or woman) to run effectively. I know the Oberfuhrer is deep into large organizations. I’ll bet he sits in his office drawing organizational charts! A Bad Move



[edit on 5/8/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Sweet Jesus! I was driving by the American Embassy in Tokyo in 1953. It was also Gen of the Army MacArthur's HQ for the UN Korea Police Action. It was on a corner lot about 600 feet by 600 feet and one large converted pre-war mansion plus a small number of out building behind the main house. It had a low stone fence about 3 feet, all around it for security. No guards or MPs visible. It was in an upscale neighborhood, a few blocks from the Imperial Palace. All that work done in such a small place! Running the Occupatoin. Running the War. How did they do it?

You do understand the differences in eras, conditions as well the capitulating culture etc…hopefully well before you cry “Sweet Jesus!”…yes?

Originally posted by donwhite
Well, how about a “bad dream” instead of a nightmare? Seriously, we need an outpost in Mosul, a large city close to Turkey, and Basrah, another large city in the southern oil producing region. Under Brits adm, we might not have too much baggage there. A much smaller one at ar Rutbah near the Syrian border would also be wise. And I’d want two in Baghdad. The main facility, and a second smaller facility. This would always keep the “watchers” guessing.

There is a huge difference between “outposts”, military bases and embassies…perhaps you may be confusing the relationships and purposes.

Considering the rest of the stated opinions ‘this’ can only be considered a …

Originally posted by donwhite
A Bad Move!

…given how the conclusions are drawn based upon sheer nonsense.



mg

Originally posted by they see ALL
i can see the "terrorists" attacking this place real soon...

Maybe thats why it was built there. Repetitive construction costs after being attacked. Probably have some kind of contract for it to rebuild in the event of a disaster or attack.

Originally posted by desert
Bechtel is a major contractor for this. This is the same company that built the PC2 petrochemical plant outside of Baghdad in 1989 (hmmm, after the Kurd gassing in 1988). No wonder Rummy was so happy to shake hands with Saddam in 1983. No wonder Nixon called him the "Ruthless Little Bastard".

Bechtel, eh? Now where have I heard that just recently? Where'd you find that, Desert?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The lead contractor for Boston's massive Big Dig highway project is responsible for most of $1.6 billion in cost overruns, according to a published report.

The Boston Globe's review of construction contracts, change orders and interviews with state officials and contractors shows that Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff was responsible for $1.1 billion of the overruns and has received $264 million more than its contract said it would be paid -- in many cases in order to fix its own mistakes.

The findings also show Bechtel failed to perform basic work, leading to $350 million in overruns; that some construction began with incomplete or erroneous designs, costing another $750 million; and that Bechtel did not heed warnings about problems in its drawings that were later corrected at much greater cost.

...

The company said putting the project on a "fast track" created a net savings of $1 billion. But the Globe reported it could find no record of a plan to award contracts with incomplete designs to shorten the project, then fill in design gaps on a cost overrun basis.

After at first asserting that designs were "100 percent complete" when soliciting bids, state and Bechtel officials acknowledged designs were still "substantially incomplete" on portions of the project, the Globe said.

source

Ten bucks says there are design teams still scrambling somewhere to get the plans 100% complete on this one too.

posted by psyopswatcher

posted by desert
Bechtel is a major contractor for this. This is the same company that built the PC2 petrochemical plant outside of Baghdad in 1989 after the Kurd gassing in 1988. No wonder Rummy was so happy to shake hands with Saddam in 1983. No wonder Nixon called him the "Ruthless Little Bastard".

Bechtel, eh? Now where have I heard that just recently? Where'd you find that, Desert?

Boston (AP) - Bechtel, the lead contractor for Boston's massive Big Dig highway project is responsible for most of $1.6 billion in cost overruns . . Boston Globe's review of construction contracts, change orders and interviews with state officials and contractors shows Bechtel Parsons Brinckerhoff was responsible for $1.1 billion in overruns and has received $264 million more than its contract said it would be paid - in many cases to fix its own mistakes.

The findings show Bechtel failed to perform basic work, leading to $350 million in overruns; that construction began with incomplete, erroneous designs, costing another $750 million . . Bechtel said putting the project on a "fast track" created a net savings of $1 billion. But the Globe reported it could find no plan to award contracts with incomplete designs to shorten the project, then fill in design gaps on a cost overrun basis. After asserting that designs were "100 percent complete" when soliciting bids, state and Bechtel officials acknowledged designs were still "substantially incomplete." -The Globe. [Edited by Don W]

Ten bucks says there are design teams still scrambling somewhere to get the plans 100% complete on this one too. [Edited by Don W]

Bechtel goes Dem or GOP as circumstances dictate. I believe they were the main contractors on building the largest harbor (and world’s most expensive) in South Vietnam during the American part of Vietnam’s 10,000 Days War of Independence. Ah, for the good ole days when contracts meant something. Today, it’s just the starting point. Yesterday I saw the cost of the Baghdad proto “Disney-Land” size embassy compound - 103 acres - was $529 million. OTOH, as I think about it, that may have been the purchase price of the land. Only. You’d think if the Iraqis really loved us, they would donate the land?

OK, I’ve got a proposed name for this thing. DeePeeTwo. Or DP2. It’s derived from Dien Bien-Phu. The second. #2.

Why you ask, did I think of that old and beleaguered fortress? Well, it made the classic military mistake, it did not occupy or control the high ground. If you’ll note the pictures, there are rows of apartment houses that will be higher than the Embassy. Again, we lack the high ground. Not good.

A long time ago - before many of you were born - the US wanted a giant embassy in Moscow. We contracted with local labor. When it was finished, we found more than 200 “bugs” everywhere. The Great Seal of the United States - apparently every embassy is furnished one - in front of which the Ambassador’s huge desk was sited, was found to have been hollowed out and a bug placed in it. Why does an ambassador need a desk larger than the president's? The Ambassador’s bedroom suite also was bugged. Hmm? Spies, blackmailers or voyeurs?

After a serious debate in Congress whether to tear it down and start over, it was finally decided to re-do the interior with imported American laborers. I hope this lesson does not go unheeded in Baghdad. I’ll bet you the Command Center of the Embassy will be like the Fuhrer-bunker of Berlin and War 2 fame. 50 feet below ground. Walls 3 feet thick of reinforced concrete. Stocked for a 30 days stay. The advantage of being old is you have been there done that. The disadvantage is nobody listens to you. OK. I’m finished with the American Embassy in Iraq.



[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]

Psyopswatcher, here's the link for Bechtel. I understand a Kuwaiti firm is listed as the new embassy contractor, but there are "secret" contractors for the "classified" areas, probably what Donwhite referred to. I'm puzzled now, as this link is the only one mentioning Bechtel; maybe they are working on the water and power part, as this is what they have done so far in Iraq.

www.lewrockwell.com...

I mentioned Bechtel out of frustration at the reality of companies having worked for Saddam and now for new Iraq--it's all money. Americans are asked to bleed hearts for Iraq, as companies bleed American tax money.