Staying in Baghdad forever...

Did most of us believe that our occupation of Iraq was only meant to be temporary, i.e. just long enough to ensure the country is stabilized, that its oil wells are pumping at full production and that Al Qaeda's spidery tendrils are largely rooted out?

I am quite sure there are few Americans who would relish the idea of our establishing 58 military bases in Iraq in perpetuity, as well as taking over command of their airspace. Iraq is a country after all that has shown scant enthusiasm for foreign occupation.

Moreover, we are not discussing the permanent control of a little Pacific island atoll; we are discussing a large, complex 5,000-year-old civilization. Seems ill advised, no? This however is exactly what our current administration has in mind, according to leaks from members of the Iraqi parliament.

World Policy Journal editor Karl E. Meyer points out in a NY Times editorial today that a similar attempt by Great Britain in 1930 had the unintended consequence of producing a violent nationalist uprising and Axis-backed putsch in 1941. In other words, by attempting to ensure a permanent stranglehold on Iraq, both Great Britain and their allies lost out .. making it rather difficult for Great Britain to call any future favors. (read op ed)