Different Kinds of Permanent Bases

Jim Henley:

[W]hen McCain and Lieberman et al try to liken an indefinite, massive presence in Iraq to the country’s lengthy deployments in Germany, Japan and South Korea, the politically potent rejoinder is probably, “Oh. And when can the troops’ families join them?” While I think the US could easily bring its soldiers home from Germany and South Korea, and should bring them home, that’s a minority opinion. But the fact is, American military personnel have been able to raise entire generations of families on bases in Europe and the Western Pacific. Everybody knows that the Defense Department is never going to authorize family housing in Iraq, for practical values of never. When McCain and Bush plan to keep The Troops in Iraq indefinitely, they’re planning a completely different experience for military families than basing troops in Europe or the Pacific entails.

The reason Cheney wants 58 permanent bases in Iraq is to "keep the peace" so the US can control the oil. Cheney thinks history will vindicate him, as gas prices continue to climb, that he laid an early claim on the remaining big spigot. He is a madman but his "reasoning" should be more out in the open, instead of these dodges such as comparing Iraq to Korea.