“Bases will be maintained to ensure that Iraq stays an obedient US client state.”

I actually disagree with that statement. That sounds more like occupation and imperialism. I think we keep bases in Iraq to maintain a military influence in the region that can be exercised when we desire. I think that is why we have bases all over the world. If we did someday go to war with Iran, we would have a great launching pad for our attacks. I certainly hope we never go to war with Iran or any other country for that matter and I am not trying to defend the fact that we have bases. I’m just saying why we keep bases. Like take South Korea and Japan for example. We have bases there because of China and North Korea, not because we want the Japanese and South Koreans to remain subservient.

An occupation can be different from having military bases, but not necessarily. I agree that it won’t be an occupation for 100 years.

However, I think the presence of bases will be imperialistic because — let’s be honest — our government doesn’t give a damn about Iraqi safety/stability for its own sake. Bases will be maintained to ensure that Iraq stays an obedient US client state.

(By the way, my last sentence has been the Iraqi consensus on US motives for war/occupation from the beginning.)

As for opinion polls, we should pay very close attention to them. Check this out:

“The belief that the United States plans to have permanent bases in Iraq is highly correlated with support for attacks on U.S.-led forces. Among those who believe this, 68 percent approve of attacks. Among those who believe that the United States plans to withdraw once Iraq is stabilized, only 34 percent approve of attacks.”
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=brme

Sorry, but lets put it this way, from an Arab speaking like you: “What are we getting from blowing up the World Trade Center that is worth the increase in anti-Arab hostility?” or “What are we getting from attacking US troops in Iraq that is worth the increase in anti-Arab hostility?” I think both of those statements are ludicrous, just as I think yours is. A lot of the anti-Arab (or anti-Islam) sentiment in this country is from ignorant people who want to blame some “camel riders” or other such nonsense, but a lot of people think a little smarter and choose not to blame an entire region, race, or religion. I think the same has to be true in the Middle East where people can understand that us having bases in Iraq doesn’t mean we are imperialists or that the American people necessarily support what the American military does. Frankly, I don’t think we should care about their public opinion polls either way.

But there is also the reality of the highly religious inhabitants of the Middle East. Bin Laden and others started their jihad against the U.S. for primarily two reasons, 1) our support for Israel and 2) Our military presence in Saudi Arabia. That’s why the consensus about long term bases in Iraq is wrong. Even if our intentions were benign, our bases would still have the appearance of being part of an occupation by the inifidels.

“If the situation improves, we stay, if the situation gets worse, we stay.”

Which is the basic idea behind having bases in a country. I don’t think you are going to find many politicians who will agree with you here. Even Democrats who might want to pull out would probably agree with the sentiment that we should have bases in Iraq long term. This isn’t a war fought for charity.

I feel like you are taking this out of context and trying to suggest that the nonsense going on in Iraq right now will continue for 100 years and that is just ignorant.

Maybe not at this level, but how many soldiers, how much money and how many Iraqis are you willing to sacrifice to pacify Iraq? John McCain has shown absolutely no concern over the cost of the war. If the situation improves, we stay, if the situation gets worse, we stay.