It might be seen as just symbolic, but I think it's healthy that the House voted 399-24 to adopt a resolution that would limit federal spending "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq."
The Republicans didn't put up much resistance, arguing that the administration had no plans for permanent bases anyway. But those who have seen some of the gigantic military installations the U.S. has built in Iraq say they sure look as if they're intended to be permanent. We still have bases in Korea more than 50 years later and in Germany more than 60 years later. Stratfor.com, the private intelligence Website, maintained from the beginning that the real purpose of the Iraq war was to establish bases in Iraq to be used to control the region and go after terrorists. Some administration supporters who claim to be geopolitically sophisticated rather than naive adherents of the "we did it for democracy" line, will admit that permanent bases are one of the goals.
So it's not a bad thing for the House to be on record against permanent bases.