Exit or presence in perpetuity in Iraq?

News reports indicate that the White House is negotiating an agreement with al-Maliki that could include permanent bases, a massive military presence in the Middle East, and dibs for U.S. investors, which "could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources." Talking Points Memo summed up the agreement best, saying:

"That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama have begun to draw a line in the sand over this, saying that permanent bases are unacceptable. 5 But opposing permanent bases isn't enough. Democrats have to act to stop Bush's move to force us into an endless occupation in Iraq. An agreement like the one that Bush is negotiating has implications beyond Iraq. Bush administration officials have indicated that a long-term presence in Iraq is necessary to deter what they call "Iranian mischief" in the region—meaning that an ongoing commitment in Iraq could also pave the way to an escalation of war with Iran. News of this agreement broke the very same day that the New York Times reported that the Bush administration is giving up on the benchmarks it had set for the Iraqi government. Giving up on these benchmarks means that there is no pressure on the Iraqi government to create political reconciliation. Combine that with news of this agreement, and we run the risk of having U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq for decades.