What does it mean that Sen. Hillary Clinton said that she wants to leave behind an undetermined number of troops "between Baghdad and Kirkuk ... for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis"?

LiberalOasis doesn't know. And that's exasperating.

Having troops in the region to counter actual terrorism operations is legit. Having troops there permanently to project illegitimate influence and undermine the sovereignty of others is not.

What's Sen. Clinton's agenda? On one hand, she has not flatly rejected permanent bases in Iraq. On the other, she has flatly supported robust diplomatic engagement in Iran and not belligerent regime change.

Is that good enough? Maybe.

If you're sincere about diplomatic efforts, having troops nearby could be a useful (though not necessary) bargaining chip.

But if those troops are clearly staying permanently, that's a signal that you're not sincere, and diplomacy will be undermined.

And we don't know where Sen. Clinton is. Which is why LiberalOasis is exasperated.

But the exasperation doesn't end there. We don't know where any of the candidates really are on the subject of permanent bases, with the exception of Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

So during the course of the year, LiberalOasis is going to try to find out.

LO HQ is not far from New Hampshire. Whenever possible, LiberalOasis will attend candidate town halls in the primary state and ask, "Do you support permanent military bases in Iraq? Will you support legislation to begin dismantling existing permanent bases to favorably change the political dynamics of Iraq and the region"

And if any readers get the opportunity to ask candidates such questions (and obtain exact transcriptions, audio or video of candidate responses), send 'em in and they will be posted here.

Hopefully, that will allow us to properly assess the foreign policy objectives of the candidates and make informed decisions.