Agreements For Withdrawal And Iraqi Security
Negotiations have begun for an agreement on the status of the armed forces with Iraq to replace the UN mandate to empower foreign forces, which is due to expire at the end of 2008. A few months after the fall of Saddam Hussein`s government by the United States in 2003, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1511, which officially recognized the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and authorized a multinational force to bring stability to the country. But the resolution called for the security mandate to be reviewed one year after its implementation. Since then, the United Nations has renewed the mandate every year at the request of the Iraqi government. But in late 2007, Maliki asked the Security Council to extend the mandate „for the last time.“ The end of the mandate will also officially end the designation of Iraq as a threat to international peace and security – a 1990 distinction. The potential of military operations is also discussed in Article 27 (deterrence of security threats) of the agreement. The agreement calls for „strategic reflection“ in the event of an external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq and states that the United States „is taking appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic or military measures,“ to deter the threat.52 It has been argued that this clause requires the United States to surrender to the defence of Iraq and, therefore, this agreement is more than a sofa; Rather, it is a security agreement that requires the input and approval of Congress53.53 If the clause is read in its entirety, the United States is not obligated to do anything other than conduct strategic consultations, and only at Iraq`s request. In the course of deliberations, all options, including military options, are available to the parties, but not strictly necessary measures.54 In order to continue to contribute to security, the MNF must continue to work within a framework that gives the force and its personnel the status they need to carry out their mission, and in which the contributing states are responsible for the exercise of the responsibility of their personnel and the relative provisions management and use of assets by the MNF. The existing framework for these issues is sufficient for these purposes. In addition, the armed forces that make up the MNF undertake at all times to act in accordance with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions. On December 3, 2008, about 2,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria protested against the Iraqi-American military pact, which stipulated that the agreement would place Iraq under American rule.
„We condemn the security agreement, a shameful and disgraceful agreement of the American occupation,“ he said on a banner outside a store in the Shiite-majority neighborhood where the protest took place.  The Scholar Muslim Association, a group of Sunni religious leaders in Iraq, accused the Iraqi Accord Front, a party that supported the pact, of „selling“ Iraq and also condemned the agreement as „legitimization of the occupation“.  Security Council resolutions do not provide for the immunity of coalition forces from Iraqi judicial proceedings. A SOFA was not considered possible prior to the recognition of a permanent government in Iraq.5 Immunity for coalition soldiers, contract workers and other foreign personnel in Iraq in security and reconstruction was established on the orders of the CPA, which relied for its authority on the laws and practices of war (in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions).