The New York Observer, by Allen McDuffee, July 28,2008

"...William Hartung of the New America Foundation contended that a Rumsfeldian approach to restructuring the U.S. military base network at this point is "a case of way too little, way too late." And given the denigration of the American global reputation caused by its irresponsible actions in Iraq, he said, "One of the best ways to restore confidence in the U.S. globally would be to adopt a non-interventionist posture" that would include "substantial cutbacks in the U.S. overseas base structure..."

While the Bush administration never has formally acknowledged the construction of permanent bases in Iraq, the nature of the military facilities suggests otherwise. Hartung said, "They are state-of-the-art, highly durable facilities that wouldn't make much sense if the plan was to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq in two, or three, or even five years."

Hartung continues, "It would obviously be better from a P.R. and global politics perspective if an Iraqi government signed off on or 'invited' a long-term U.S. presence. But if the Pentagon wants permanent bases, they will no doubt twist the arms of whatever Iraqi government is in power to make it happen. And it is possible that they will just stay indefinitely, without ever officially calling the facilities 'permanent bases.'"

Hartung said that in the end, continuing with the Global Posture Review "is too close to the status quo to have any real strategic or diplomatic meaning. 'Staying the course' on bases makes no more sense than 'staying the course' in Iraq.""