Given broad Iraqi opposition to the U.S. occupation "" and with new elections scheduled for early 2009 "" Iraqi political factions are trying to position themselves as defenders of the nation's sovereignty, not American puppets.
That political dynamic has led to reducing the U.S. military options contained in the evolving status-of-forces agreement.
New Draft
The latest draft, dated Oct. 13 and translated by Iraqi political analyst Raed Jarrar, sets firm deadlines for the removal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities and towns (June 30, 2009) and for their final departure (Dec. 31, 2011).
In a little-noticed concession, the Bush administration not only gave the Iraqi government veto power over any U.S.-desired extension of the departure date, but wording was inserted to require clearance through "constitutional procedures"- for the U.S. military presence to go beyond 2011, an apparent reference to approval from the Iraqi parliament.
With key factions hostile to an ongoing U.S. military presence, that wording would seem to lock in the withdrawal dates. Although the Bush administration has tried to spin the U.S. departure as "conditions-based,"- it now has the look of a firm timetable.
Other language in the agreement requires the United States to turn over any fixed bases to the Iraqi government at Baghdad's discretion.
So, the neocon dream of transforming Iraq into a land-based aircraft carrier for carrying out military strikes against Iran, Syria and other perceived enemies appears to be ending, regardless of whether neocon favorite, McCain, succeeds President Bush, or Obama does with his plan to remove U.S. combat forces over 16 months.
Under the latest version of the status-of-forces agreement, the only option for carrying out the neocon plan would seem to be the raw imposition of American imperial dominance, a move that would meet widespread international resistance and likely rekindle the insurrection inside Iraq.
The far more likely outcome in Iraq is the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Washington left with little to show for its investment in blood and treasure.
If that indeed is what happens, the supposedly "successful surge,"- which has cost more than 1,000 American lives, will have done little more than buy Bush time to exit the White House before the full consequences of his military adventure become obvious.
As for Iraq, it seems doomed to continue as a country plagued by sectarian rivalries. The Shiite majority will establish close relations with neighboring Shiite-ruled Iran; the Sunnis will remain resentful over their reduced status; and the Kurds will insist on their autonomous region in the north.
Whether a meaningful democracy can survive long amid these tensions "" and the recent history of horrific violence "" is doubtful. The bitter end-result for the Iraqis may be the Balkanization of their country into sectarian enclaves or the emergence of another strongman in the mold of Saddam Hussein.
For the United States, memories of its military intervention in a country halfway around the world may fade gradually into history, swallowed by the shifting sands of the ancient land of Mesopatamia, another chapter of failed imperial overreach in a long saga dating back to Biblical times.
Despite the terrible price in blood, treasure and prestige, little may remain of Bush's adventure besides the recognition of a painful strategic defeat for the United States and a historical reminder about the arrogance of power.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
