I heard a statement from Barack Obama in his Meet the Press Interview on Sunday that is very important to me. He said "there will be no permanent bases." Personally, I think that this is the most important commitment on Iraq that a candidate for our Presidency can make before taking the oath of office. I think that it is the that our bases are permanent most clearly takes us across that line between liberator or peace keeper and occupier. It arrogantly assumes that there will be no sovereign Iraq which might not want our troops in their country for the foreseeable future creates a mentally among both Iraqi nationals and our troops that we are in this for the long haul.

The interview has generally been panned by most as not a very good performance, considering the great speech he gave the night before, but this one line is very important. I am not sure if it is the first time it has been said, but I could not find a lot of discussion about the issue. As an Obama supporter I am very pleased to see him take this position which I had already been advocating.

Discussing permanent bases is much less sexy than discussing residual troops, but in my mind cuts closer to the fundamental issues without making promises that may be very difficult to keep. Those bases are an insult to the concept of Iraqi sovereignty and state more clearly than any propaganda that we intend to occupy their country for the foreseeable future. They gives lie to the claim that Iraqis chose their own government and that they are in any way independent of American control. Without those bases there is room to hope that our troops will come home and Iraq will once again govern itself.

When the major Democratic candidates talk about leaving residual forces behind that has a significantly different meaning if we are maintaining permanent bases. Those bases mean stationing our troops in Iraq permanently like we do in Japan, Germany and hundreds of other countries around the word. That is not what most of America wants, we do not want to occupy any Iraqi soil, we want to give them their country back and ensure that our troops are used wisely. In ways that make us safer rather than increase the risk to America and its citizens. We must shed the mantle of occupiers.

I think that this is a better position than promising no residual forces because it allows for more flexibility in finding solutions to the problems that plague Iraq. Most Americans feel a sense of responsibility and sickening dread when we consider what should be done in Iraq. We are not the solution, but under a difference president we can be a part of the solution. There is still potential for mass slaughters in Iraq, and our withdrawal plan should attempt to minimize that. For example, I think that some form of international peacekeeping force should be on the table as a possible solution, and a president who has promised "no residual forces" cannot promise American troops as part of a peacekeeping plan. I want our troops home, I still don't understand how anyone could have supported them going to Iraq in the first place. I also want us to be able to end this in a way that causes the least harm going forward, and I don't want my president to be hamstrung by promises that were made just to placate the base and win an election.

There are many ways you can promise peace. A withdrawal plan is critical, an end to combat missions is important, the promise of no permanent bases is fundamental.