U.S. embassy in Baghdad: 'Fortress America'

OMG

"Mission Accomplished."

"We'll be greeted as liberators."

"The insurgency is in its last throes."

"It's hard work."

"It takes time."

Yep. 4 1/2 years and counting.

If I had to work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and I had to count on Dubya's read on things, I'd want to live in a fortress too.

And when we build these sad statements of American insecurity in more countries, let's make sure US diplomats are politically appointies with no foreign relations expereience, know zip about the country's culture & not speak their language.

Nothing makes a statement like 15-foot-thick blast walls. Unless, of course, the building was constructed using forced labor? Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?

"The United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future,” Loeffler says in her article, “Fortress America.”

I think that says it all!!!

We used to call them forts, back when we were introducing the indigenous peoples of America to freedom, and the one true religion. It ain't easy being a liberator.

This "is" a sad statement to our current administrations view of the world.

This place should just be designated the GWB Presidential Library.

Quote from Athena's prior post: "Nothing makes a statement like 15-foot-thick blast walls. Unless, of course, the building was constructed using forced labor? Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?"

Yes, Athena. The contractors or sub contractors did use a kind of forced labor. Filipinos who were hired to work elsewhere in the Middle East, were transported against their will into Iraq, to build the US embassy.

And the whistleblower is a high ranking american official.

Mark, is that Jane "Loeffer" (paragraph 2) or "Loeffler" (elsewhere in the article)?

The spelling-challenged reporter fails to mention that Jane Loeffler is a Democrat Party activist who has contributed to John Kerry, Bill Bradley and the DNC. The reporter obviously spent some time looking up her bio, but either didn't spend the one minute it took me to find this out, or found it out but didn't want the reader know this.

Once again, the "Swamp" headlines the anti-Bush words of an obscure "historian" who just happens to be a Dem activist. And once again tries to hide the facts of that partisan affiliation.

This doesn't look like the product of a country that is planning to leave EVER. It's all about controlling the ME -- and all that oil. Instead, could we please develop alternative fuels and be self-sustaining as a country? These wars for natural resources are only going to continue, as we simultaneously ruin the planet. What is wrong with us in the US? Europe is so far ahead of us on this. We could learn from them, if we could only get past our own hubris.

one more step to isolationism......sad sad sad

The author leaves out one important point: what the embassy is modeled upon. Apparently the architect used the ideological and intellectual bubble bush surrounds himself with as his inspiration. Nothing, no thought, no feelings, no light can penetrate this embassy, just like bush's brain.

It's brilliant in its willful ignorance.

OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.

CONSERVATIVE MY ASS!!!!!!!

And once again tries to hide the facts of that partisan affiliation.
-
And why is that important? I wonder what the partisan affiliation is of the camera that took that picture of that monument to empire.
How can anyone look at that and not be ashamed of our country?

Once again RNCBruce attacks the messnger and ignores the factual message. Will you ever stop gulping the kool-ade?

An arcane reference to a pointless fact about a historian does not defend Fort America & what it stands for, does it?

Pathetic.

Looks like we're "definitely" going to win the "hearts and minds" war.

Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 9:24 AM

sigh... OK Bruce, we all know that the author is obviously a pinko commy liberal.

But how about the Fortress/Embassy the US is building in Iraq?

You know... the subject matter of the article?
Care to comment on that? Is it a good idea? Bad? Do you find this a good foreign policy statement or no? What's your stance on that? How about pausing for a second from attacking the author and addressing the subject matter at hand?

Democracy is alive in Iraq -- if you happen to be behind 15 foot blast walls. How many Iraqis will be that lucky?

Once again, the "Swamp" headlines the anti-Bush words of an obscure "historian" who just happens to be a Dem activist. And once again tries to hide the facts of that partisan affiliation.
Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 9:24 AM

So, are you saying that this 'embassy' is really RNC Headquarters? Tom's comment about it being the perfect place for GWB's library was hilarious.

The "message" of the above article is that Swamp reporters will go to great lengths to diss Republicans, even to the point of trotting out partisan attacks as non-partisan. That is the "message" I responded to.

As to the substance (if any) of Ms. Loeffler's remarks, if any of the commenters here bothered to look at her writings, they'd discover that she has written for the last decade (yes, including the Clinton years) about the trend of US Embassy buildings being designed for security. In fact she criticized the state department for not caring enough about security in its embassy buildings. This building appears to be the culmination of a decades long trend that she once applauded.

In all honesty, the "look" of an embassy building is about as irrelevant to foreign policy as you can get. 99% of the people of a country don't know what even one foreign embassy building looks like, let alone get their foreign policy thoughts from the "look" of an embassy building. When she tries to create some deep and significant meaning around what she sees as a building's "look", she's just being silly--or partisan.

You loons don't seem to understand the IMPORTANCE of keeping our people totally isolated. The Iraqis are trying to contaminate our precious bodily fluids and must be eliminated. Kill them all! Kill them all! They are all terrorists!

The self sufficiency, the blast walls, and the enormous superstructure should protect our people from the effects of the nuclear blasts. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

To Bruce (10:44a): If you want to be counted amongst the 99%, then that's fine. You can take comfort in the fact that you are in the majority. I've seen US Embassies and Consulates in many other countries in Asia and Europe. Though generally speaking, the ones in the Middle-Eastern Islamic states are heavily fortified, I've never seen any like the one being built in Iraq. US Embassies are usually designed to keep American citizens safe during a disaster (war or otherwise) in that country. That's a sound policy that any country should advocate. But this one in Iraq is so isolated and fortified, that it does nothing to further the theory that Americans are the friends of the people of Iraq and they are there to liberate them and give them democracy (though I heard recently that that's being re-thought).

What bothers me are the lies and hypocrisy. You start with WMD which of course was a lie; then go to removing Saddam which the Americans had no jurisdiction or moral authority to do, however bad he may have been; from there to bringing democracy (as if the people in Iraq came begging and pleading for it - never mind the fact that they aren't ready for it) and now we're saying that maybe we need an effective govt. in Iraq, one that can bring peace and security even if it is not democratic. To me that sounds like Saddam's Govt. 5 years ago minus oh.. about 80,000 lives.

The "message" of the above article is that Swamp reporters will go to great lengths to diss Republicans, even to the point of trotting out partisan attacks as non-partisan. That is the "message" I responded to.

As to the substance (if any) of Ms. Loeffler's remarks, if any of the commenters here bothered to look at her writings, they'd discover that she has written for the last decade (yes, including the Clinton years) about the trend of US Embassy buildings being designed for security.

Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 10:44 AM

Bruce... 1) I don't see the word "republican" anywhere in the article.. do you? It's about the embassy our government is building... not Republicans... our government. Your manufactured outrage is pathetic.

2) Immediately after claiming this article is somehow a hit-piece on Republicans you state that the author had the same opinion of a Democratic president's policy toward embassies.

Are you really this dumb or do you just pretend to be to suck attention away from your heroes?

Bruce is once again willfully misrepresenting someones previous positions. Raise your hands if your shocked. Anyone? Anyone?

Read for yourself.

http://mirror.afsa.org/fsj/sept05/loeffler.pdf

Ms. Loeffler has written extensively on the need to BALANCE security and openness in embassy design.

In all honesty, the "look" of an embassy building is about as irrelevant to foreign policy as you can get. 99% of the people of a country don't know what even one foreign embassy building looks like, let alone get their foreign policy thoughts from the "look" of an embassy building. When she tries to create some deep and significant meaning around what she sees as a building's "look", she's just being silly--or partisan.

Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 10:44 AM

So your saying that if the Iraqi government were to build a building of that size and form in your hometown you wouldn't notice it? EVERY person in Baghdad (i.e... you're 99%) knows exactly what this building looks like and what it represents.

You're making the author's point, dumbarse.. historically our embassies have been PART of the community, so they blend in and don't give the locals the impression that we're.. I dunno... building a permanent military fortress headquarters for the purpose of occuppying the nation?

To say Bruce's post misses the mark is really unnecessary, he never even attempts to get to the point, and serves only to cloud and muddy the water with bait-and-switch distraction techniques. I'm starting to think this Bruce/ JFK Democrat/ Former Leftist character is actually less human than the Johnny D, which I thought nearly impossible.

Sorry to digress, but the fact is that architecture matters profoundly, both as a matter of functionality and symbolism. The symbolism here, as has been pointed out, is all wrong and I've been dreading this ever since I first heard there would be a $500 million fortified embassy built, the largest of its kind in the world.

We are occupiers. The embassy represents permanent occupation and empire. It is thus precisely the wrong message to send, as well as laying bare all the other lies we've been told about this war- spreading democracy, liberation... Anyone who ever believe that has hay for brains.

Did I spell everything right Mr. "Liberal Bias?"

Hey Bruce. Keep posting your right-wing drivel. I like laughing out loud in the morning.

Ten to one we never occupy it. It will end up being a half a billion dollar boondoggle. A testimony to Bush's world view and failed foreign policy.

Bruce it must suck to need a paycheck so bad that you'll work for despotic people who defend the Bush administration. The RNC must pay you very well to swallow your pride if you have any.

Is that a moat in front of the building?

Is that a moat in front of the building?

Posted by: PD | August 29, 2007 3:30 PM

Yes, and at Dick Cheney's insistance it has been stocked with sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

The laser beam comment was soooo called for - lolol!

I understand that many people want America to draw down it's military presence in Iraq, that they believe the war was started on false pretenses and that the money and lives lost (both Iraqi and Coalition) aren't worth the benefit. Those points are reasonably debatable and I respect the arguments on both sides. What I don't understand is why building a large, heavily fortified Embassy is so bad.
There's no doubt in anyone's mind that Baghdad is very dangerous--to the point that an American stands a reasonable chance of being shot or kidnapped for just walking down the street. Why is there popular support to give the miliary in Iraq the latest and most effective armored vehicles but expect the Embassy to throw open its doors? No one complains about the imposing security at the many military bases all over the country, but it's suddenly a scandal if the Embassy puts up a blast wall?
And the movie theater: I bet that if you were confined to a two square block area for months at a time, you'd want a movie theater, too. The reason a shopping market exists is because diplomats can't just walk to the local gas station to pick up a quart of milk without getting abducted.

The security situation is the way it is, so don't penalize diplomats who volunteer to spend a year of their lives in a war zone serving their country.

This is a huge huge building. 14 acres? It must look like just another of the palace structures of their last leader. Could you imagine fifty to seventy percent unemployment in your country? Our great depression that almost took the worlds economy with it had an estimated 20% unemployment. So in this enviroment we build this embassy not with local workers but ones from other countrys. Don't give locals a job of trust or something to do. Build blast walls fifteen feet thick to keep out the rif raf. We build it first before you have dependable electric power or a job or security or drinking water. Wouldn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy about your new ocupiers?

Miraculous, isn't it, that we can build an embassy that's bigger than 80 football fields but we can't build a police station or a children's cancer clinic in Basra?

It looks like Hitler's bunker on steroids and above ground. All that money would have built a really nice hospital.

One of my Arab friends kindly sent me the below link, noting wryly that "Since you've resumed building Crusader castles, you might at least ensure that they've the same architectural integrity as previous ones. You don't have to look at them every day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak_des_Chevaliers