Permanent US Bases in Iraq?

This blog entry, again from Huffington, is an interesting, though brief, discussion on a Gary Hart entry. O'Hanlan has some good points but I think doesn't go far enough. I also think Hart is ranting without making sufficient, intelligent, comment on the topic.

Obviously, it isn't the time to make that decision.
First, the country hasn't become stable enough to even project whether the US will be welcome when the country is stable. The stability of the country is our first concern.
Second, the occupation may well go on, at various levels, for a decade to come. So some semi-permanent base is probably justified at this time. Whether they come to be permanent isn't really relevant to the endgame at this time.
Third, the time for the decision may come under a different administration. They should be the ones that should make that decision, not the present one.
Fourth, are these bases necessary? Will the cost/benefit analysis in the end justify the investment? I'd say that we can't make those determinations now, and with the political instability in Iraq now, the answer is not likely to be valid in even the near future.

Rumsfeld has commented on this subject previously:

American officials have tried to make the point that the US presence in Iraq will not be a permanent or long-term one. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a 21 April 2003 press conference said that any suggestion that the United States is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate." Rumsfeld said "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. ... The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge. Why do I say it's low? Well, we've got all kinds of options and opportunities in that part of the world to locate forces, it's not like we need a new place. We have plenty of friends and plenty of ability to work with them and have locations for things that help to contribute to stability in the region. ... Rumsfeld: I think there is a down side. I think any impression that is left, which that article left, that the United States plans some sort of a permanent presence in that country, I think is a signal to the people of that country that's inaccurate and unfortunate, because we don't plan to function as an occupier, we don't plan to prescribe to any new government how we ought to be arranged in their country."

That strikes me as quite clear. Maybe Mr. Hart should try doing a simple google search on the topic before yipping about the topic. He obviously wants a straight up yes or no answer from the president. What is his reason? Politics?

But let's say that the building of concrete and steel bases for our troops is in process, is this an issue? My point is that having more permanent and safe bases for our troops, in a theater of war, would not only make it safer for saving life and limb, but would also help them psychologically. I can't see anyone saying this is wrong. The Global Security link above does discuss FOB (forward operating bases) and other forms of bases as well. Not to mention that many of the bases that are being used are those that were created by Saddam and are now being utilized by US troops.

The US military has hunkered down, moving into the isolated compounds and bases that Saddam Hussein's security forces used to protect themselves from internal enemies. Thus, US forces are most readily attacked when they leave those bases to go out on patrol or in convoys.

Maybe Gary Hart should ask Algore for a lesson on how to use the internet. He may actually be able to get answers to his questions.