Are we creating permanent bases in Iraq?

The Associated Press

On patrol -- permanently?

Featured Topic | Posted 40 weeks 2 days ago

Are we creating permanent bases in Iraq?

The Bush Administration is negotiating with the Iraqi government to keep U.S. forces in that country after the U.N. mandate expires. Critics say such an agreement will force the next president to keep following Bush's policies; the administration disputes that notion, and says it won't submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification.

Would the "status of forces" agreement create permanent U.S. bases in Iraq? Should the Senate ratify the proposal?

Ben likes: Looking forward in Iraq

The Wall Street Journal

What is certain is that next January U.S. forces will still be deployed in Iraq in large numbers. Securing the conditions by which they can drive out al Qaeda and tame the Shiite militias, deter Syria and Iran, and guarantee Iraq's integrity and freedom would be a worthy legacy for this Administration, and a useful inheritance for the next.

Joel likes:Tough negotiators

Spencer Ackerman/The Washington Independent

The whole idea of the deal—and its timing—is to tie the hands of the next president. It’s true that the president won’t formally be constrained, particularly if the deal won’t be subject to Senate approval. But diplomacy is funny thing.

At the very, very least, Bush’s successor faces an uphill battle to undo the bilateral deal—and that’s before the Iraqis start griping about the U.S. not keeping its word and the domestic press runs with that storyline. And, fundamentally, that’s exactly why the Bush administration is negotiating this deal before leaving office.