The plan is to occupy Iraq forever.

From tonight's presidential address:

[Iraqi leaders] understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

That's meant to sound like 1) this is the Iraqis' idea, and 2) a withdrawal, because it "requires many fewer American troops."

But if this was the Iraqis' idea, then we wouldn't have already built the permanent bases and announced our plans to stay in 'em.

And that fact the permanent occupation doesn't require 130,000 troops is not news. As LiberalOasis said last year:

The end game is, and always has been, permanent military bases. A permanent military presence gives them the ability to exert influence on the Iraqi government and makes it easier to pressure neighboring countries, or start wars with them.

You don't need, or even want, to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to accomplish that. Probably around 30,000 would do.

Which is why the Bushies don't flinch at talking about drawdowns in the future, because it's part of the plan anyway.

Democrats are starting to get better at crystallizing the policy choice before us.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "The American people reject the president's call for an 'enduring relationship' with Iraq that is based on leaving our troops in the middle of a deadly civil war for at least 10 years."

And Sen. Jack Reed's televised response said, "An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option."

But more than a few statements are needed. Democrats must frame the entire policy debate around this issue, and offer a clear alternative to permanent occupation.

Enforcing the law against funding permanent bases would be a start.

UPDATE: Chris Wallace said on Fox News last night, in a post-speech interview with Sen. John McCain, that Bush "emphasized" his desire for a permanent military presence in a press briefing earlier in the day:

WALLACE: [Bush] emphasized to some of us at a briefing earlier today [something] that he feels [is] very important. He basically said he wants to build, what he called in the speech, an "enduring relationship" that will last "beyond" his presidency.

In effect, a strategic relationship with Iraq, that would mean keeping, obviously not the same number of troops, but thousands of troops there for decades, perhaps on the Korean model.

As someone running to be the next president, would you support that commitment?

MCCAIN: I think that would depend on the Iraqi government and people. But after we freed Kuwait from Saddam Hussein we built an enduring relationship with the Kuwaitis. In fact, they’re playing a vital role as an area where we can support the troops in Iraq.

Wonder what "vital role" Iraq will play in the future...