When is an occupation not an occupation?

According to the Post, the military is planning for post-occupation occupation.

A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country.

We're going; but before we go, we're staying.

So the strategy seems to be to try to confuse the Iraqis by talking out of both sides of our mouths, telling them that the "occupation" of Iraq is ending and drawing down the overall numbers of US troops, while maintaining the indefinite presence of US military garrisons in Iraq. I dunno, I kinda think they'll see through this little ruse and continue to resist the occupation even after we start calling it something else.

For more on the long-term non-occupation of Iraq based on not-quite-permanent basing of US troops there, see Tom Engelhardt here.