Drowned out by the noises of the Weinerroast are two related stories that should be much bigger news. Both stories received more attention in the British press.
Iraq will ask US troops to stay post-2011, says Panetta
Outgoing CIA director Leon Panetta said he had "every confidence that a request like that will be forthcoming,"...[and] if Baghdad did make such a request, he added, Washington should say yes.
Secret US and Afghanistan talks could see troops stay for decades
Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal.
American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any "permanent" bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements.
"There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian.
To be clear, neither of these reports is saying that the U.S. troops will stay past the expected withdrawal dates -- end of this year in Iraq's case and end of 2014 in Afghanistan's. Politicians and citizens in those countries may be able to influence when the United States leaves. What these stories expose are the intentions of the United States.
Iraq.
According to the Status of Forces Agreement, the U.S. must withdrawal troops by the end of this year (presumably not including those stationed at the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.) The departure date is unchangeable unless Iraq asks the United States to remain. Secretary of State Gates has already said he hopes Iraq makes such a request. Now President Obama's pick to succeed Gates, Leon Panetta, has said that he expects that Iraq will make such a request, and that the U.S. should say yes.
It's unclear, however, whether Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki could afford politically to ask U.S. forces to stay. Moqtada al-Sadr, whose support for al-Mailiki put him in power, is already organizing mass rallies to protest a continued American presence. A large American presence in Iraq past the end of the year would cause widespread upheaval that could threaten al-Maliki's hold on power. Yet he says he's open to the possibility of U.S. troops staying.
"So just to clarify," Damon asked, "if the situation dictated it, you would be willing to have U.S. forces extend their stay in Iraq?"
"Absolutely," al-Maliki said.
A continued U.S. presence would also be bad politics for President Obama, who's made getting out of Iraq by the end of the year a central promise of his presidency. Safe to say that much of the Democratic party's base would not be pleased.
Afghanistan.
This story, which the Guardian broke, is murkier, and the Obama administration has, for what it's worth (not much imo), denied that it's seeking permanent bases.
U.S. State Department official Daniel Benjamin has denied reports that the Obama Administration is seeking permanent bases in Afghanistan, saying he was unfamiliar with such reports but that they were simply untrue.
"We do not intend to have permanent bases in Afghanistan that would threaten others in the region. We've been very forthright about that," insisted Benjamin at a meeting in Washington D.C.
But if you read the Guardian story, you'll realize that "permanent base" is a term of art. A U.S. base that exists for a hundred years is not technically permanent. Nothing lasts forever, donchaknow. Many U.S. officials have denied wanting permanent bases in Afghanistan -- they must, for obvious reasons -- but look at what one of the Guardian's sources says:
"There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian.
The point is that the U.S. is seeking bases in Afghanistan from which to launch attacks well into the future.
There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets.
Although the Guardian piece is based on unnamed sources, I found it persuasive. Truth is, it would be surprising if the U.S. were not looking to stay in Afghanistan. Once the U.S. hunkers down, it tends to stay for while. Ain't called the American Empire for nothing.