Mathew Yglesias writes: Speaking of Iraq policy, I seem to have misset my clock radio last night and instead of the usual NPR got what I think was C-SPAN Radio where they had Marina Ottaway on. She, unlike pretty much everyone else one ever hears talking on this subject, did an admirable job of raising the elephant in the corner of American Iraq policy, the fact that near as anybody can tell the administration is still trying to finagle some kind of permanent military basing agreement in Iraq. That the administration has managed to hew consistently to this agenda without ever stating that this is one of their major policy goals is astounding, and that the American media is consistently unwilling to discuss the point is appalling. What's even more astounding about it is that one regularly hears and reads in expert commentary that we ought to "make clear" that this isn't what we're doing. Apparently, it's impolitic to note that Bush isn't making it clear that we don't want permanent bases because we do, in fact, want permanent bases. This passage reminded me of something...

...the famous Project for a New American Century military plan completed for the Bush campaign (PDF) in September of 2000:

The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (p. 29)

From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. (p. 26)

From a neo-con perspective, the invasion of Iraq has many purposes, but the central role that new, permanent military bases in southern Iraq played in the rationale never been seriously discussed by the media. In fact, it did not even make the top twenty-seven rationales for war identified in this study. However, in all the many rationales that have been discussed openly, the central role of new permanent military bases in southern Iraq cannot be avoided. The purpose of such bases is to buttress the forces already in Kuwait, prop up a puppet Iraqi regime with a permanent military presence, maintain an aggressive military stance against Iran, wield significant influence over Gulf region oil fields, and increase the reach of the American military over all of southwest Asia. Bush, the GOP platform committee and the majority of the now high-ranking members of the Defense Department either said or wrote this on several occasions during the 2000 campaign. Yet the media never talks about it.