What is it called when a country invades another and stays there indefinitely?

Let’s suppose one powerful country decides to invade a Third World country, to cripple its ability to use alleged (never confirmed) weapons of mass destruction, to overthrow a dictatorship, set up a "democracy" and insure the operation of a "free market."

To assure access to the plentiful oil supplies in the occupied country, the invaders guard the oil fields and other areas of strategic geopolitical importance.

After smashing the innitial resistance of the overthrown government, the invading forces set up a local government, train military and police forces on how to deal with those who still fight against the invaders or the newly established government and actively participate for years in military operations aimed at "stabilizing" the country.

Utilizing their powerful political and economic influence over the local government, the invaders obtain legal immunity covering all aspects of alleged criminal acts commited by the foreign troops or diplomatic or civilian representatives.

The invaders proceed to detain persons they describe as "terrorists" and employ abusive methods to obtain information or locate prisoners in secret detentions centers where they are subject to gross abuse of the Geneva Convention and are not allowed due access to legal defense. Such abusive practices are defended by the invading country with the argument that they "save lives."

Then, concerned that a presidential election could complicate their continued presence in the occupied country, the invaders negociate a secret deal to assure the indefinite military occupation of the country, provide for the permanent occupation of military bases by the invading troops and allow them continued immunity and the right to arrest local citizens. 

What would the correct political terminology be to describe the action of the invading country?

The reader might well have imagined by now that the reference is to Iraq.

The English "The Independent" has just revealed--what not a few observers already suspected--that the U.S. forces are working out a secret agreement with authorities in Bagdad that would in fact insure their presence in the country indefinitely, inspite of the possible intentions to the contrary of the U.S. Democratic presidential candiate

Would a country like the United States--badly in need of the oil in Iraq’s wells and openly aware of the geopolitical importance of a permanent presence in the area--be willing to withdraw after spending millions of dollars on the venture, after the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers and that of countless more Iraqis? After compromising itself on the international scene with the supposed justice of its action?

The plan to invade Iraq no doubt was on the agenda of  Pentagon and State Department experts far before the September 11th terrorist attack against the Twin Towers--which gave a needed pretext for the invasion. A brief glance at history shows that U.S. involvement abroad in military actions are not mere improvisations but rather follow a studied consideration of the strategic benefits of such involvement.

One detail: Rep Bill Delahund (D-Ma) has released a letter from 31 Iraqi legislators who assert that they would oppose any long-term security agreement, such as that mentioned in the Independent report, "if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops."

Most inquiries indicate that the vast majority of Iraqis oppose the continued presence of U.S. forces.

A victory of Republican presidential candidate McCain would certainly reforce the insistance on a continued military presence in the country, although perhaps reduced in numbers. McCain insists that there have been improvements in the country. That is, the occupying forces have become more effective in supressing opposition.

The Democratic party candidate, B. Obama, has long questioned the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq and in the region, supporting a policy stressing negotiation over military operations. However, in view of the overtowering political and economic interests of what ex-president Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex" it is unclear to what extent a genuine withdrawal from the country will actually be carried out.