And if a status of forces agreement (SOFA) isn't signed this year, there is a real possibility that Iraq will not get a status of forces agreement that actually helps Iraq defend their country or fragile democracy.
The Iraqis know all this. Which makes it hard for me to accept this apparent difficulty at face value:
In his strongest comments yet on the debate, Nouri al-Maliki echoed concern by Iraqi lawmakers that the U.S. proposals would give Washington too much political and military leverage on Iraqi affairs.
"The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock," he told reporters in Amman, Jordan. "So, we left these first drafts and the negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."
The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration.
To me, it seems as if the Iraqis are kicking up protests now to deprive opponenst inside Iraq of ammuntiion later to derail the agreement once negotiated. The goverment can point to their protests of June to defend what emerges in July or August.
Remember, Iran's friends inside Iraq will complain no matter what the terms of the agreement are, and will allege they betray Iraq's sovereignty. Best for the government to bluster right now in defense of rights not under attack in order to disarm the Persian lap dogs of one line of attack.
So the Iraqi government will insist that we move the SOFA a little more to the left; then a little back; then a little to the right; and then a little closer. Voila! Perfectly placed!
