An Enduring Relationship

Today was the day that we committed to staying in Iraq for the rest of most of all of our lives. It happened with hardly a whisper, but the result is devastating.

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.

So while Bush is a lame duck, with a Presidential election fought largely over Iraq raging in the background, he's going to commit the United States to a long-term relationship with permanent bases as what amounts to an occupying force in the heart of the Middle East, with the goal of forcing his successor to honor the agreement.

And he made this deal with a sectarian Shiite theocracy which only a couple days earlier he accused of killing American soldiers in a bombing in Baghdad. Not only that, but we'll be propping up that government as a part of this deal, defending it against coups (does that also mean the peaceful transfer of power?).

This new "enduring relationship" would begin after the renewal of the UN mandate peters out at the end of 2008. In other words, it would start at the very beginning of the next President's term.

None of this is surprising. He told us this in countless addresses to the nation and off-the-record comments. We knew that his goal was not only to pass this mess on to the next President, but to make it nearly impossible for the next President to leave. As Spencer Ackerman notes:

Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse [...]

Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:

"To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory."

In other words, we're staying in Iraq to defend Nouri al-Maliki against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What will the presidential candidates say about this?

Today Iraq became the 51st state. And there's also this:

The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive, said U.S. military and diplomatic representatives appeared generally favorable, subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

This is about forcing open another market and raping resources, on the US side. On the Iraqi side, this is about an unpopular government getting force protection.

On the side of human beings, it's a catastrophe.