The United States is one step closer to a "status of forces" agreement
with Iraq. Here's the Guardian's Simon Tisdall on the news:
US troops will withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011 and American and
British soldiers deployed there in the interim period could face
prosecution in Iraq's courts for serious, premeditated "off-duty"
crimes, under the terms of a draft status of forces agreement outlined
today by officials in Baghdad and Washington.
The draft agreement, which is intended to replace the UN security
council mandate that legitimized the US-led invasion in March 2003, and
subsequent occupation, follows months of fraught negotiations. It must
be ratified by the Iraqi parliament before the end of the year.
And that's where things stand--namely, on paper-thin ice. Tisdall continues:
The agreement, if implemented, would mark a potentially significant
milestone in the slow, often painful evolution of independent, Iraqi
self-government since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein five years ago.
It represents a climbdown by the Bush administration, which had
previously refused to set a deadline or timetable for a troop
withdrawal.
But is a timetable for withdrawal what we're really looking at here? Among the
myriad of reasons for the "slow, often painful evolution of
independent, Iraqi self-government," is a co-dependence nurtured by a
robust and disempowering U.S. occupation.
Perhaps the most important words in the description of the tentative
withdrawal agreement are "unless Iraq asks them to stay longer." On its
face, this sounds quite consensual. But consent is a tricky thing with
an imbalance of power as acute as that between the United States and
Iraq.
Recent articles on Electronic Iraq:
