In Iraq Forever?

Permanent occupation? America using Iraq as a permanent base in the Middle East for its larger strategic goals? This, of course, has been all been dismissed as moonbat-ery by conservatives and pundits... which is why probably most of them ignored this story earlier this week-

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence...

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute (remember him? he's the 'war czar'!) states that "It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations. Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations." Huh?

His specification that this is not a treaty is likely very, very deliberate. As James Boyce reminds us, the Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate. Which, of course, would never happen. So, it's not a 'treaty'. It's merely a 'set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations'! Good on you, Lt. Gen. Orwell!

(There's also the teeny matter that the Iraqi constitution-- remember that?-- requires that an agreement would have to approved by their Parliament. Their constitution probably means even less than ours now does, though.)

The White House has given a typical non-denial denial to all this speculation, of course.

TPMmuckraker takes a deeper look at this deal and why it is a disaster waiting to happen for Iraqi security... not to mention our position in the world. The U.S. military would, to whatever degree, remain the official police force for the struggling Iraqi government. That is a lose-lose by any intelligent standard.

If this happens, it will be (mostly) what the neocons wanted out of Iraq all along, however clumsily we got here. It's maddening how the only things they got right-- selling the invasion, ensuring we never leave-- are the parts that damage America and Iraq the most. And no one seems willing to push back against this tide.

Wouldn't it be nice if someday we ended a war on our own terms and then left the country to take care of itself (while still diplomatically/financially taking responsibility for our actions)? Edwards is right... no more Koreas.