The shift to a permanent presence in Iraq

Has anyone else noticed the very quiet, but growing, shift in rhetoric among the Bush administration towards a permanent presence in Iraq?

Josh Bolten explains/extends Bush's remarks in the Draper book.

In an interview with the USA TODAY editorial board, Bolten said the president plans to talk later next week about what his aides recommend and how he plans to proceed.

Bush wants to make "it possible for his successor — whichever party that successor is from — to have a sustained presence in the Middle East," Bolten said. "And have America continue to be a respected and influential power in the Middle East."

Despite the coded "presence in the Middle East," there can be little question this White House is talking about Iraq Forever.

Separate from any discussions of the merits of permanent bases in Iraq, how does this play within the current politics in Iraq? Does it make them more or less likely to work with the current US force?

And, why now? With Maliki on the ropes and reconciliation all but dead, why would the White House be (so publicly) introducing this aggravating element right now?