Politics is an attractive avocation for New Hampshire, especially during the long winter months when cabin-fever lurks around the corner. So, there's hardly a discouraging word to be heard that a baker's dozen of potential presidential candidates are scheduled to entertain us in the next few months.

That said, I must admit to a prejudice, to the belief that public officials ought not to be campaigning for another position while the responsibilities they've already assumed are either ignored or pawned off on someone else. That the members of Congress have an interest in communicating their policy positions to like-minded constituencies is not convincing. We just had elections three months ago to let them know what we want done and that hasn't changed.


"Interests" is one of the two words I definitely don't want to hear from Senator Barack Obama, whose visit to Durham is next on my calendar. Especially not in the context of "the United States has interests in the region"--referring to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Unless, of course, the Senator is willing to spell out what precisely those interests are. That they don't include the welfare of the people seems pretty obvious. Otherwise the U.S. wouldn't still be dropping bombs and sending missiles into urban areas. Indeed, that U.S. interests don't even include the welfare of the sheep is obvious from our destruction of their wells and irrigation lines.

And, while most Americans would agree to an interest in the reservoir of oil underlying the region, being good Christian people, they wouldn't think to steal it. Indeed, the role played by oil is actually a bit of a puzzlement, since, the price steadily increasing, it's obviously not being purchased with the blood or our troops either.

Relying on interest as a rationale for action is morally suspect. From the bank robber to the slaver, all have an interest in something that doesn't belong to them, prompting societies both ancient and new to organize and respond with a resounding, NO! Interest does not justify interference.

Still, it might be worth discussing in the context of promoting human rights. Combat, as in removing or redeploying our combat troops, is definitely a word I don't want to hear. Because it is either disingenuous or downright deceptive.

Whether the total American troop strength is 150,000 or 158,000, as the spokesman for KBR in bragging about the contractor support his corporation was providing in Iraq revealed in a congressional hearing yesterday, the combat brigades that are actually interacting with the Iraqi resistance to secure the bases from mortar and grenade attacks and the convoys from IEDs buried along the routes are, at best, a third of the total occupation force. And getting the Iraqi Army and Police to take over their responsibilities, to provide security for the American bases, in addition to the espionage facilities being built in the green zone, is a mission that's not going to be accomplished, regardless of the fact that the U.S. does not consider its presence in Iraq as an occupation.

The presence of more than a hundred thousand American technicians, engineers and electronic specialists on four or more mega bases on territory from which the Iraqi people are forcibly excluded is an occupation, just as surely as the Bush/Cheney's Administration's tenancy of the White House and Executive Offices is an occupation. Considering that the authenticity of the electoral process was and remains dubious, the legitimacy of the latter is only marginally more legitimate than the government of Iraq.

That the interests being promoted by the military assets ensconced on those bases and, so far, effectively hidden behind classified contracts and programs, have little or nothing to do with Iraq but are, rather, focused on the other nations in the region (Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan, India, Russia and China, for starters) is bound to be of little sollace to a people whose natural resources are about to be sold to the highest bidders in the global market. Not to mention the forcible dislocation of more than ten percent of its total population.

Now that all the convenient fictions justifying the invasion of Iraq have been dispelled, what's left? Presumably, the people of Iraq have an interest in surviving--an interest they should understand by now can only be secured by securing the U.S. interests in the region.

Can we talk about the bases, Senator Obama?