|
It was inevitable there would come a time when Iraq-US relations would change. While it cannot be said they have soured, they are definitely on the turn, like milk that is left in the sun too long. And the reasons for the change were always there for everyone to see - the continued US presence on Iraqi territory.
The very existence of the US and its allies on Iraqi soil has all along been questionable. The US and the UK say that under UN resolutions passed by the Security Council they had the right to protect Iraq against terrorists and insurgents following the defeat of Saddam Hussain.
Opponents argue that the original UN resolutions did not provide adequately for the entry and continued presence of allied forces in Iraq. Although much of that argument is in the past, sadly it still affects the present and the future of Iraq.
The US wants to continue in Iraq past the end of 2008, when it should officially go. Last November, US President George W. Bush and Iraqi President Nouri Al Maliki agreed in principle to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) which would allow US forces to stay in Iraq 'indefinitely'.
Such a proposed agreement has been met with great hostility by a number of Iraqis, not least the controversial cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, who has already stated his 60,000-strong Mahdi army would fight the US if it continued staying in Iraq.
With the time for signing the agreement between the US and Iraq drawing ever nearer, the realisation has come upon Al Maliki that he may be giving up too much to the US and relinquishing certain sovereign rights which would be unacceptable to the government and the people.
Consequently, as things stand the issue remains unsolved and has dim prospects of any success as presently phrased.
|
