This article is based on a complete, total and unambiguous misunderstanding of the issues. The author thereby betrays a complete misunderstanding of the basic underlying processes. The SOFA is a way station toward the desired objective of a permanent US presence in Iraq, a part of the broader desire to create a stable neo-colonial dependency.

Press reports cite US officials of stating of the SOFA that, “The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday — just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote.” Furthermore, “’ There are a number of areas in here where they have agreement on the same wording but different understandings about what the words mean,’ said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.”

The author in the article states, “The nut of the agreement is article 24 that states, “‘all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011’”. Yet, if the author did his homework he would be aware of the following report in the Washington Post, “For example, the U.S. side agreed to scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested, according to one official close to the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity. But nothing prevents the Iraqis from seeking such an extension, according to congressional staffers briefed by U.S. officials last week in Washington.”

Article 5 of the Declaration of Principles states that in the economic sphere, “Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.” Article 10 of the Strategic Framework calls for the “modernization” of “Iraq’s private industrial sector to enhance growth and expand industrial production including through encouraging networking with US industrial institutions.”

The argument defended in this article is invalid

Markob, thank you for your comments.

You are correct in mentioning debates over wording as well as "looser interpretations" of security issues that some within US policy circles desire. However, as mentioned, any significant changes to the agreement are reliant on approval by the Iraqi parliament.

In this, and I would ask you to try to grasp of the basic principles of post-invasion Iraqi politics here, the functioning of Iraq's political system is reliant on extremely tenuous co-operation between groups who are antagonistic to the idea of continued US presence (see al-Sadr and al-Hakim factions).

The US is caught as it needs Iraq to function, even superficially, before it can supposedly implement what you see as a "stable neo-colonial dependency". The Iraqi government will not simply act as a puppet for US interests in an issue that would completely undermine their efforts to establish the necessary political patronage to survive. So the idea that the SOFA is simply a "way station" in the establishment of a US Middle East outpost does not add up.

To assert that the US is single-mindedly and successfully seeking to achieve a "stable neo-colonial dependency" in Iraq grossly overstates the ability of the US to achieve desired foreign policy outcomes as well as the cohesiveness of US foreign policy itself. The Iraq war, as we are all too aware, was/is a total c*ck-up. The SOFA is another ill thought out, reactionary policy that leaves Iraq in a highly tenuous political situation.

It is not another piece of a mysterious jigsaw that advances a shadowy master plan to convert Iraq into a US satellite state. Whatever dreams held by certain sections of the Bush foreign policy team and their various hangers-on for this has passed. Certainly, the US will have a particular influence over Iraq for some time to come. But please do not fall into the same black and white trap (Iraq as liberation or Iraq as neo-colonial adventure) as so many before. That frame of reference has come and gone. The situation is an absolute mess and requires a nuanced perspective.

quote from markob>>The author in the article states,“The nut of the agreement is article 24 that states, “‘all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory>>

as anyone knows words are slippery

as any simpsons fan can explain an embassy located in australia [or iraq] or an obsolete 'base' in cuba IS american territory[not iraqui or aussie][or in germany,japan ,and many [30 plus]other american occupaTIONAL; TERROR-TORIES.[noting about the same number of iraqui bases will remain armero juristiction]

By the way does 'US TROOPS' include civilian mercenaries [blackwater black guards] or airforces ,or navel gazers on shore leave,or cia agetators and spies?

but i see in reading the origonal article he has adaquitly covered most of the points allready[and as so few are rebutting it post this as support for it [under law silence means assent] so there seems a fair bit of silent assent to the import of the article

we are so easilly led by what we think the words our leaders use ,

i will restate [i did not have sexual'relations'with'that''woman'] its possably one of the best'legal definitives' ever to be ejeculated by any 'po-lie-trick-tian'