For every two steps forward in Iraq, there is also a step backward.
The recent news has been heartening. For the last three weeks, attacks have been at the lowest level since early 2004, and May was the lowest casualty month for U.S. forces since the war began. However, the latest security improvements have complicated life for American representatives assigned to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government.
This bilateral agreement is supposed to provide authority for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq in 2009 and beyond, replacing a U.N. Security Council resolution that is due to expire at the end of the year. President Bush had hoped to finish negotiations by July, but that deadline seems likely to slip. The problem is that Iraqi politicians are resisting many of the conditions that Washington feels it needs.
Sticking points include whether the U.S. will continue to control Iraqi airspace, whether U.S. soldiers and private security contractors will maintain immunity from Iraqi prosecution, and whether the U.S. will continue to have the freedom to carry out combat operations and to detain terrorist suspects without Iraqi approval.
From Washington's perspective, these are measures necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. troops as long as a substantial number of them remain in the war zone. U.S. commanders could not in good conscience continue to fight with too many restrictions on their ability to protect their soldiers and accomplish their mission.
So why are Iraqi leaders trying to hinder the very military operations that have been making their country safer and thus strengthening their own authority?
One factor is the approach of Iraqi elections -- provincial elections this fall, national elections next year. In the competition for votes, Iraqi politicians want to flaunt their nationalist credentials, and one of the surest ways to do that is to make a public show of not being patsies for the Americans.
Another factor is the U.S. presidential election. Iraqis know that they can count on the support of the Bush administration, but they are reluctant to make a deal with a lame duck, especially because Barack Obama, should he win, might well renounce any bargain struck now.
