...the U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea have been among the most successful in this nation's history. While building a similar bond with Iraq may prove impossible, it's hard to understand why Democrats would oppose it in principle.

There isn't any separation here between what's impossible and 'principle'. The United States of America did not invade Iraq to protect it from communist domination or to defeat an empire that had carried out a sneak attack on our Pacific Naval fleet. There is no legitimacy whatsoever to our occupation of Iraq. The only consideration that favors the continuing occupation of Iraq is a variation of Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule, which is that since we broke Iraq we have some obligation to pay for fixing Iraq. Or, to put it in Fred Hiatt's terms:

But [Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki] pointedly told a press briefing that negotiations on the strategic partnership would continue. He repeated that commitment on Friday, even after warning that the talks had "reached a dead end." In effect, the Iraqi prime minister was saying that his country does not want to become an Iranian satellite but an independent Arab state that would look to the United States to ensure its security.

America can 'ensure' Iraq's security without occupying their country with 58 military bases. Iran has no history of invading its neighbors and they would find it just as impossible to rule Iraq as we have found it to be. They will not invade Iraq. And even if they lost their minds and did invade Iraq, we would be perfectly capable of doing what we did when Kuwait was invaded, and expelling the invaders. If there is an argument for a permanent occupation of Iraq it not to deter Iranian aggression but to prevent an implosion of Iraqi society. Look at this nonsense:

There are claims that the Bush administration is seeking to establish scores of permanent U.S. bases. In fact, Iraq has merely asked that the agreement list the bases from which American forces would be permitted to operate. It is claimed that the deals would perpetuate the U.S. "occupation." In fact, they would be a major step in the opposite direction, by placing American troops under the sovereignty of the Iraqi government rather than the United Nations.

Even if we take Hiatt seriously here, what possible difference is there between establishing 58 permanent military bases in Iraq and listing the 58 permanent military bases in Iraq from which we will be permitted to operate? How is formalizing 58 permanent military bases in Iraq in any way not a move to perpetuate the U.S. occupation?

If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq's defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.

First of all, Congress is not being consulted at all in this process. Secondly, creating 58 permanent military bases in Iraq is not a necessary ingredient in any commitment to protect Iraq from foreign aggression. The only country currently invading Iraqi sovereignty is Turkey, which bombs Kurdistan on a semi-regular basis. I have long said that it might be advisable to keep a military presence in Kurdistan to protect Iraq from Turkey and to protect Turkey from Kurdish nationalists. But I see no reason that we need 58 permanent military bases in Iraq to prevent Iraq from looking to Iran to protect their security from Turkish invasion. Moreover, isn't it a little absurd to think that Iraq would look to Iran to protect them from invasion if Iran is the country most likely to invade them?

This isn't a situation like Poland faced with Germany, where one country will consider vassalage preferable to outright invasion. Iraq is weak internally but, other than Kurdish-Turkish relations, they do not face the threat of invasion. We can make it quite clear to Iran that we will destroy any heavy military equipment they move across the border into Iraq. We can do that from bases in Kuwait and Qatar.

It's quite illuminating to see just how imperialistic the Washington Post editorial page is. They've supported this neo-con fantasy all the way down to the point of defending Scooter Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice. It's a disgrace that they so willingly spread misinformation and pimp false dichotomies. We need to get out of Iraq, not engage in fantasies about how nice it would be to occupy the country if only they would act like good Koreans. Jesus.