The Iraqis are getting the jitters about their forced marriage to the United States. Can’t blame them.

A recently drafted agreement between the two governments would supposedly have U.S. troops out by 2011, but is giving enough wiggle room for the United States to remain till eternity come.

"The Iraqis want to find a specific formula regarding the withdrawal that closes the door and doesn't leave all the windows open," says Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, a senior member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest party in the ruling Shiite coalition.

“The whole idea of a deadline is a politically driven fraud,” states Phyllis Bennis at the Institute for Policy Studies. “It is not coincidental that when the Bush administration appeared to give in on the once-rejected idea of a timeline, the actual description was that of a ‘time horizon’—very beautiful, perhaps, but you could never get there.”

The Iraqis are also worried about whether new standards for prosecuting U.S. servicemembers for abuses are rigorous enough. On the surface, it all seems kosher, with a proposal for a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee to inquire into such excesses and decide whether the accused would stand trial in an Iraqi court. Again, though, the Iraqis worry that the language is too vague.

Such concerns about the agreement have worked a minor miracle in Iraq, uniting on the same side the Iraqi government and its archrival Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr’s people have been holding public demonstrations to protest against the agreement.

“Thousands of Iraqis loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Saturday in Baghdad against a proposed deal that would allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after the end of the year,” states an October 18 report in the Washington Post. “The protesters, waving Iraqi flags and banners bearing messages critical of the United States, marched from Sadr City in eastern Baghdad to a large square in the city's center, where Sadrist leaders delivered fiery speeches.”

The Bush Administration is furious, claiming that the Iraqi government is posturing and acting as a patsy for the Iranians. Bush officials are forecasting doom if the agreement is not approved.

“In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told wire service reporters that the door to change was ‘pretty far closed’ and warned that failure to reach a deal or renew the United Nations mandate would mean suspension of U.S. operations,” the LA Times reports. “ ‘There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process,’ he said.”

U.S. military commander Michael Mullen also fearmongered, claiming that if Iraq dillydallies on the deal, its forces "will not be ready to provide for their security,” and that there was “great potential for losses of significant consequence.”

But the Iraqis are right to be concerned. In the absence of any watertight promises by the U.S. to withdraw its troops or to grant Iraq the right to prosecute troops who commit crimes in Iraq, what self-respecting government wouldn’t have qualms?

Of course, the dynamic may be completely changed when the Bushies leave office. Or maybe not. McCain has said that U.S. troops could be stationed for 100 years if necessary and has refused to abide by any specific timeline. Even though Obama has been better on the subject, he has still fudged, stating on his website that “a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.”

But what if the Iraqis don’t want us? The new Administration will need to finally start respecting the sovereignty of a country that the United States has illegally invaded and occupied.