Dodd: Dodd Admin = NO permanent bases in Iraq

Now, we all know that the United States has no permanent bases anywhere in the world.  So, not having them in Iraq should go without saying.  And, indeed, the Bush Administration, in issuing a blue-print for our future relationship with Iraq, uses the word enduring, just as if the fourteen enduring bases that were planned before the invasion are still part of the agenda.

And, indeed, they might be with some of the Democratic candidates who've been mouthing the same line that

Iraq's leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."  (President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, The White House, 9/13/07)

for several months now or hedging their position by addressing the status of combat troops, conveniently overlooking hundred thousand "security" contingents, mainly from the Air Force, that have been sequestered on the (enduring, not permanent, long term) bases.  

Chris Dodd has not hedged.  He's said he'd bring all the troops out.  That's what his rapid response to the so-called

U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation

,

issued late yesterday afternoon, soon after the Principles were announced, says:

Frankly, it’s hard to believe that the Administration is just beginning to figure out what the future bilateral relationship with Iraq should look like after more than four years of military occupation. But, this declaration of principles is more notable for what it doesn’t say than what it does. It does not require Iraqi leaders to make substantive progress on their political benchmarks nor does it end US military involvement in Iraq. Indeed, Senator Dodd is fearful that the lack of clarity on the long-term presence will be used as a justification by this Administration for a permanent military presence in Iraq, at precisely the time when we should be declaring the opposite. In a Dodd Adminsitration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.

Ah yes, the things left out!  Or, the dog that didn't bark.  The important stuff.

Of course, one of the things left out of both the statement from the White House and the Dodd Campaign is the recognition that the Iraqis meeting in Helsinki, Finland, have made progress toward reconciliation by adopting the following principles:

1- To be rational in political speeches, for the national interest, and to move away from sectarian and ethnic dispute.

2- To bring an end to the displacement of Iraqi people and work to take care of those displaced, and secure their safe return, with guarantees of their safety by the national forces in co-operation with political parties and tribal leaders.

3- To deal with the subject of militias under the following procedures:

A- Arming, supplying, training and making sure that the security forces (army/police) are capable of undertaking their duties efficiently. Make sure that the security forces are equipped to adequate levels to achieve an effective national force.

B- Activation of economic development across the country, to contain youth unemployment and use the effors of young people to rebuild in order to improve the quality of life for all citizens.

C- Those working outside the law and using military resources inappropriately shall be brought to justice, with no differentiation.

4- The emphasis on the common vision for all Iraqi political entities on the importance of termination of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq through the completion of national sovereignty and rebuilding a national army and security apparatus according to a national vision within a realistic timetable.

5- An emphasis on the continuation of constructive dialogue between different political groups aiming to fulfill national goals.

6- To convince political groups that are currently outside the political process to initiate and activate a constructive dialogue to reach common understandings.

7- To deal with armed groups which are not classified as terrorist, encouraging them to use peaceful political means to address the conflict and to provide their members with jobs and opportunities within state administrations.

8- Working towards correcting the misunderstanding that accompanied the political process and encourage all Iraqi political parties to participate in building Iraq in all aspects.

9- The cessation of the violation of the human rights of Iraqi citizens and their properties by continuous bombardment and military actions by foreign forces. The Iraqi government must take responsibility to protect innocent civilians.

Principles 4 and 9 seem rather unambiguous.  "Get the troops out and stop the bombing."

But, instead of holding out for that, al Maliki and his cohorts have cried "uncle," and, with their arms twisted behind their backs no doubt, have agreed to just another year of occupation in exchange for an "enduring relationship" like we have with a hundred other countries to keep some 750 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

It's beginning to look like that Base Reallignment and Closure Commission didn't go nearly far enough.  How many foreign installations did they consider closing before recommending that our shipyards be shut down?  Or was that all just a political ploy to transfer some large chunks of prime real estate (and some hazardous waste dumps) into the private sector's hands?  

Anyway, it would seem that the process whereby our military sets up installations in foreign lands is due for a review.  Somehow, our military being invited in, especially when the inviters-in are dictators, doesn't sound like a prescription for peace and stability.  Which are, of course, not the same as "pacification," and not something we would ever aim for!

This whole "Status of Forces Agreement" business sounds suspect.  Whatever happened to treaties that get considered and reviewed by the Senate?  Or, is that another one of those "quaint practices" from the good old days that the modern "neo" conservtives have determined needs to be scrapped?  Wonder if a Dodd Administration will restore that part of the Constitution, as well?

In any case, I'd like to suggest that we resolve some of the ambiguity about the United States military installations in Iraq by referring to them as "fixed" bases, defining them by what they are, rather than by how long they might or might not stay.

9/11 really did change everything.  Before that date it could be argued that the U.S. military needed to be "johnny on the spot," handy to whereever trouble might break out.  9/11 proved that false.  Being on the spot was obviously no guarantee that johnny would even get out of bed.  We're right to worry about missiles that might hit in thirty minutes.  Because on September 11, 2001 it took our Air Force over an hour to get off the ground and there's absolutely no evidence that their response times are any better now.
What's the point of planting missiles so they can take off in 50 seconds when there's no-one at the controls?

Considering that the Bush Administration gives every indication of suffering from shell shock, a temporizing agreement is probably the best Iraqis can expect, until there's someone more competent at the helm.  Dodd's nimble response suggests he's got what it takes.