Good news: Iraqis are balking at 58 permanent military bases for the US in their country:

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Why good news? We have no business sitting around the Muslim Middle East for the rest of our lives. If the Iraqis are to become more independent and self-governing, removing an occupying army is a good start. A decision of this magnitude should not be made by an out-going administration regardless of the evolving views of the American people. Americans deserve to debate this as well as Iraqis. And then there's the question of trusting a government that can come up with locutions like this one:

"The idea that the U.S. will have a normal, diplomatic and military presence, and need access to facilities not necessarily our facilities, but need facilities is permanent."

What is a normal military presence? And when did it become normal for one country to be stationing troops in the heart of another one?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.