The [Iraqi] parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.if this resolution survives maliki's veto threat, then it's likely that iraq will withdraw permission for u.s. forces to operate in iraq in six months. in 2005 president bush said that "he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so."
The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.
bush could still break his promise. indeed, i expect that's exactly what he would do if the iraqi parliament lets the mandate expire. but doing so would surely worsen the situation in iraq, and make it even harder for u.s. politicians to support a continued military presence in the country.
notwithstanding the administrations suggestion that the u.s. will have forces in iraq for the next fifty years, i really believe that u.s. forces remain there on borrowed time. with both the u.s. public and iraqi public solidly against a continued u.s. presence, and with pro-withdrawal political forces in both countries gaining strength, a pullout is all but inevitable. bush can dig in his heels and stop it from happening on his watch. but that doesn't make it any less inevitable in the long run. the only real issue is how many people have to die in the meantime.
