i really don't get why the bush administration is pushing so hard for a security pact with iraq. the security pact would set the terms for a permanent presence of u.s. troops in iraq. the problem is that it would have to be ratified by the iraqi parliament and u.s. congress and it's chances of passing either body approaches nil. it's an election year in both iraq and the u.s. the public in both countries are solidly against a long-term presence of american forces in iraq. on top of that, as i mentioned before bush's own philosophy of the powers of the executive branch would mean that any such agreement could be broken at will by his successor.
so what's the point? the effort is doomed to fail and, if by some miracle he pulls it off, under bush's own view the pact would not be a binding commitment. so why is there so much effort to finalize the agreement by summer? is there any possible way this could work in the administration's favor that i'm not seeing? or should i give up trying to find a rhyme or reason for anything the bush administration does in iraq?
