As the deadline approaches for an end to legal US operations within Iraq, no move is being made by the Iraqis to approve a new security deal with the United States - one which currently outlines US combat troops in the country until 2012. The plan also requires Iraqi control over US combat troops, giving the Iraqi government security control of it's country... but is this one step too far?
The plan has already been through a series of stalemates, putting the future of US operations in the country in question. If the plan is not approved by Dec 31st, by the Iraqi parliament, the US must cease all operations within the country, and begin to remove all forces.
The Iraqis requests are a direct affront to the continued presence of the United States in their country - and they may be playing on the hopes of an Obama victory in the US to offer a plan for immediate withdrawal. The requests include greater control over US forces in the country, a pledge to not attack Iran from their territory, and criminal trials for US soldiers under Iraqi laws. Such measures are sure to further Iraqi support, but are also going to dissuade US support.
So the question seems logical - is the Iraqi government maneuvering to expel US forces from their country by legal means? Taking the question one step further - If a restored government requests that the US leave, should the US act on behalf of their new ally and leave?
This is an obvious indicator of success in Iraq. But there has never been a definition of when the "job was done"... there is a lot of talk about finishing the job, and not leaving before the job is done in Iraq... so perhaps this is the indicator?
If not, I question what is the indicator of success in that country - because I can guarantee that there will never be zero violence... heck - just look at any major US city and try to argue that we are at a state of zero violence!