My last diary on this website, posted about a month ago, referred to General Abizaid's recent comments about our need to be in the Middle East (with some level of permanent military occupation) for at least another 50 years.
A tremendous amount of information (for instance the fact that we have constructed the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad) indicates that with regards to Iraq, many within the Bush administration have operated under the implicit and unspoken assumption that our occupation and fortification there will indeed be permanent.
Today we see explicit confirmation that this is what is happening.
Here then are the relevant stories on this topic breaking today:
US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago
President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.
The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.
"What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them — all these things are on the negotiating table," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The proposal underlines how the United States and Iraq are exploring what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. It comes as a Democratic Congress — unsuccessfully, so far — prods Bush to withdraw troops faster than he wants.
....And then there's this from today's TPMmuckraker:
War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 12:54PM
Could Congress stop a Bush administration-brokered deal to garrison U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely? Not according to General Douglas Lute, the so-called "war czar." Here's Lute at today's gaggle:
Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?
GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it's not -- it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.
Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?
GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.
So we have indication today that the Bush administration is working behind the scenes to create some kind of quasi-legal apparatus (re: agreement) with the Iraqi government as to the permanent nature/status of our military presence (re: occupation) of Iraq.
I would interpret that it is doing this in an effort to ensure the next president (presumably a Democrat) does not dismantle our fortification. The size of our embassy in Baghdad alone suggests that permanent "security" (either privatized as in Blackwater or not) will be required, and the military bases (referred to above) also suggests we are not going anywhere anytime soon.