“We’re not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. That’s been a clear matter of policy for some time”, said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesperson on January 24th, 2008, as reported in Asia Times Online. But clearly he wasn’t referring to the legal language that is being crafted right now into SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) which will ensure that the statement is in fact technically accurate, but in a real world not even remotely close to the truth. Indeed this was corroborated by Mary Beth Long, an assistant defense secretary, when US Senator Jim Webb called to ask what ‘permanent’ means. According to her, “…the word ‘permanent’ probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term”. Which in plain English is translated to: it depends how you interpret it. Is being in Iraq 10 years permanent? How about 100? A million? This legal chicanery was quickly observed by Iraqi officials who noticed that the document being worked out currently contains “…neither a time limit on access to Iraqi bases nor any restrictions on the US to ‘conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security”. Which means the Bush administration officials are purposely leaving it open precisely to establish permanence in every sense of the word. Although the document makes references to military operations as ‘temporary’, “the absence of any time limit makes that seemingly reassuring term meaningless…”

However Bush’s political partisanship and politicization of the war doesn’t just stop in Iraq. His political football continues at home as well where he plans to make SOFA an ‘executive accord’, effectively bypassing Senate ratification process where he knows he will face political difficulty, if not outright opposition. Moreover, the language being crafted is meant to also deflect potential criticism at home, which given the mainstream media’s standards of investigative journalism, is not only possible, but highly likely.

But wait, there is more… The initial draft also contains specific language to address the concern that SOFA may provide legal pathway to war with Iran. To that, the document rebuffs those claims by inserting the statement that the US “does not seek to use Iraqi territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states”. Those ambiguous ‘other states’ is Iran. But what’s more ambiguous is the term ‘offensive’. Why was it even included in the document? Couldn’t they just leave it out to make it “military operations”? The answer is clearly no. Bush is interested in war with Iran at least as a possibility, and since his constituency (American people) opposes it… along with US Congress, Iraq, Iran and the world (except Israel), the only way to do it would be to leave another intentional loophole in the SOFA document. Since according to the initial draft it would be illegal to launch any “offensive” operations, it leaves a huge void as to the argument that US is responding to Iran defensively. Hence it signals to Iran: stop influencing Iraqi politics and meddling in its internal affairs (presumably American affairs) or we strike - legally!
And to corroborate this hypothesis, there is more evidence. The US also wants to control Iraqi skies up to 29,000 feet, as I reported earlier here. Talk about democracy and Iraqi sovereignty…

But if SOFA is not enough, there is arguably a more powerful circumstantial evidence that the Bush administration is seeking military (primarily) permanence in Iraq. In his blog TomDispach.com, Tom Engelhardt called the erection of huge military complexes as “the greatest story never told”. His description of these military installations remind one of colonization:

Pentagon built a series of fortified American towns, each some 15 to 20 miles around, with many of the amenities of home, including big name fast-food franchises, PXes, and the like, in a hostile land in the midst of war and occupation.

Although officials refuse to use the word ‘permanent’ in relations to the bases, “in fact, in relation to any U.S. base on the planet, they have been built to long outlast the Bush administration itself”, he says. Hence if Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008, it will be anything but easy to challenge American military presence in Iraq, much less to initiate a withdrawal.

Can’t you see Bush’s idiotic wink on his face already?