The Aswat al-Iraq news agency reported a mixed reaction from the Iraqi population to the news that the cabinet had approved the agreement. Residents of the town of Sadr in Baghdad, a stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr, said they believed the agreement was signed too quickly, while a wider “Vox Pop” of Iraqis across the country said they believed the agreement would become a point of disagreement.  U.S.-led coalition forces, which participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were first subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their parent states. After the transfer of sovereign power to an Iraqi government, coalition forces in Iraq were nominally subject to Iraqi jurisdiction and worked without the status agreements of the forces.  In theory, the Iraqi courts had the right to bring coalition forces to justice for alleged crimes, although this right was never exercised. [Citation required] What is the status and rights of American troops in Iraq? When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, there is no return to the status quo. The United States has agreements in many other countries There is no agreement or status of the armed forces (SOFA) authorized the presence of American troops in Iraq. Some anonymous U.S.
officials and experts who follow the war have argued that they believe that parts of the agreement could be circumvented and that other parties could be interpretable, including: giving Iraqi justice to U.S. soldiers who commit crimes off-base and out of service, the part that requires U.S. troops to obtain Iraqi authorization for all military operations , and the party prohibiting the United States from launching attacks against other countries from Iraq.  For example, government officials have argued that the persecution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq could take three years, and by that time the United States will have withdrawn from Iraq under the agreement. In the meantime, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. uniform code of military justice. Michael E. O`Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there were “these areas that are not as clear as the Iraqis think.”  In a letter to the U.S. military about new rules of engagement, General Ray Odierno said that U.S.
forces would reduce their visibility, but that this does not mean “any reduction in our fundamental ability to protect ourselves.” Odierno wrote that U.S. forces would “coordinate operations with the agreement of the GoI (Government of Iraq), and we will conduct all operations through, with and through the Iraqi security forces. … Despite some adjustments in the way we conduct operations, the agreement only strengthens the transitions already underway and I want to emphasize that our general principles remain unchanged,” he added.  On the one hand, there is a strong union of Iranian military and political powers backed by Iran that is actively trying to get the United States out. The commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, Qassem Suleimani, who is close to Fatah`s political faction in Iraq, is determined to do so. The Shiite cleric`s party Moqtada al-Sadr, which is usually at odds with Suleimani but agrees on this issue, said that all foreign troops must leave, not just the Americans. There are remarkable similarities between Thai politics during the Mayaguez incident and Iraqi politics today. Both countries were immature democracies with polarized societies electing a new government. In this context, politicians often rely on the mindset against the grassroots to gain public support.
But this dynamic can be uncontrollable and force them to understand the threats of kidnapping foreign forces, even if they don`t really want to. Most of the foreign troops that were part of the troops in Iraq were to leave Azerbaijan until 31 December 2008 with troops from Azerbaijan Poland Macedonia, Japan, Bosnia, South Korea and Georgia. The Iraqi and British governments are said to have negotiated a security agreement similar to Iraq and the