With the Iraq war in its fifth year and no end in sight, the Bush administration is putting the final touches on an agreement for a “long-term relationship” there. Its work must be closely watched by Congress.

Both governments need legal justification to continue the American military presence in Iraq. The current basis is a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires at the end of this year. It permits U.S. and other coalition forces to operate in Iraq “in support of mutual goals.”

President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed last August that they would develop “a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship.” They both signed a Declaration of Principles to that effect in November. First on the list was: “Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.”

That evidently sounded suspiciously like a proposal for a treaty commitment, which would require a two-thirds affirmative vote in Congress, so that clause is being rewritten.

But the question of whether the projected agreement will function like a treaty has already aroused congressional objections. The Boston Globe reported that in a recent House hearing Rep. Dana Rohrabacker, a conservative California Republican who has been an outspoken supporter of the Bush war policies, accused the Bush administration of “arrogance” for not consulting with Congress about the pact.

Other elements in the proposed agreement may raise objections by the Iraqi government as well as members of Congress. For example, the administration is seeking immunity from Iraqi law for the 154,000 civilian contractors working for the Department of Defense in Iraq. They are exempt under an earlier agreement, but Iraqis are outraged over civilian deaths at the hands of Blackwater and other contractor organizations.

Officials deny that any figure is contemplated for the future level of U.S. forces or that the U.S. has any plans or interest in permanent bases in Iraq. However, the string of U.S. military bases in Iraq already have the look of permanence.

The Nov. 26 declaration of principles includes one that all but specifies an administration interest in guaranteeing the entry of American oil firms. It reads: “Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.” That line feeds the common suspicion that the entire venture is really about oil.

Turning a controversial war into a promise of “a free, democratic pluralistic, federal and unified Iraq” will take some careful wordsmithing indeed.