Pearce doesn’t vote to oppose long-term base in Iraq

The U.S. House of Representatives easily approved last week a resolution that would make clear that the United States will not establish a military base in Iraq for the “permanent” stationing of troops there or attempt to control Iraq’s oil.

Those are hot-button topics among liberals since the White House has recently indicated that President Bush may intend to keep a military presence in Iraq similar to its presence in South Korea, where American troops have been stationed for more than 50 years. Still, House Resolution 2929 was uncontroversial enough that it was approved on a vote of 399-24.

The resolution states that the United States’ policy is “not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” It also states that no funds made available by Congress shall be used to establish a permanent base in Iraq or control that nation’s oil.

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., joined with 23 other representatives to vote against the resolution. In doing so, he was disagreeing with 399 colleagues, including New Mexico Reps. Heather Wilson, a Republican, and Tom Udall, a Democrat.

In a statement released by his spokesman, Pearce said “there’s no such thing as a permanent base. Around the world, all of our bases are only there at the invitation of the host country. If they ask us to leave, we leave.”

“Even domestically, we have a base relocation and closure process that routinely moves and closes bases every four or five years,” Pearce said. “Further, it is the responsibility of the armed forces to decide where they need to set up bases and move troops around the world. Congress has the obligation to fund them or not to fund them.”

“Regarding the oil issue, I do not know of an attempt ever to use Iraq’s oil for our benefit,” Pearce said.

Pearce’s last statement will especially rile liberals who believe the president’s unchanging strategy in Iraq has to do, at least in part, with the benefit the United States can gain from that nation’s oil.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has its eyes on Pearce but has not yet jumped into the 2008 campaign against him, attacked Pearce’s vote.

“This vote just shows how out of touch he is with the people of New Mexico,” DCCC spokesman Fernando Cuevas said. “While the American public continues to express their dissatisfaction with the course this administration is taking in Iraq, Pearce continues down the same failed path as this administration.”

Pearce’s vote is further evidence that, as the war continues to lose the support of the American public, Pearce will continue to back the president’s policy. Pearce, at least as indicated by his public statements, is ideologically aligned with the president on this issue and doesn’t intend to jump ship even as other Republicans are doing just that.

It will be interesting to see how that affects his 2008 re-election bid.