What was that definition of "sovereignty" again?

MANIFESTO

Today,

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki toughened his language, reiterating earlier Iraqi demands for a fixed date for the withdrawal of American troops.

However, in their latest exhibition of nation changing, the Bushies will have none of it.

The Bush administration has consistently emphasized that the agreement — needed to legalize the presence of American forces after the United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year — is still in draft form.

“These discussions continue, as we have not yet finalized an agreement,” a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said ... “We’re optimistic that Iraq and the U.S. can reach a mutual agreement on flexible goals for U.S. troops to continue to return on success, based on conditions on the ground, and allow Iraqi forces to provide security for a sovereign Iraq.”

I'd love to be able to think that this is amusing, and indeed it would be if US troops weren't dying in vain while the Bushies draw a line in the sand.

Fratto's statement that all of this is being done to keep Iraq a sovereign nation is ironic in the extreme. It's very much like the Vietnam era rationale of "We had to destroy the village to save it." Here, it's we have to occupy the nation so that it can retain its sovereignty. I'm kind of missing the logic therein.