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,[27] while a wider “Vox Pop” of Iraqis across the country said they believed the agreement would become a point of disagreement. [28] In protest at an agreement they saw as extending a “humiliating” occupation,[45] tens of thousands of Iraqis burned an image of George W. Bush in a central Square in Baghdad, where American troops and Iraqi citizens had shot down a statue of Saddam Hussein five years earlier. [46] The Iraqi Parliament was the scene of numerous protests before[47] and during the vote. [48] Some anonymous U.S. officials and experts following the war have argued that they believe that parts of the agreement could be circumvented and that other parties could be interpretable, including: the parties that give Iraqi legal orders on 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 that prohibits the United States from launching attacks against other countries in Iraq.

[37] 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that the persecution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq could take three years, and by that time the United States will have withdrawn from Iraq under the agreement.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.” [15] The agreement, signed in 2008 by both the United States and Iraq, confirmed political, diplomatic, defence, security and cultural cooperation in the fields of economy, energy, health, technology and justice. However, Ahmed Jamal, spokesman for the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, told Al-Monitor: “What has been achieved is limited to a few security zones and the war on terror.” However, in a December 6 press release, Hadithi responded to Carter`s statements by saying, “The future of relations between Iraq and the countries of the international coalition to fight Daesh will be determined by Abadi in accordance with its powers,” i.e. this would not contribute to the construction of a strategic alliance with the United States. The United States is a major world power, which played a central role in Iraq`s history, expelling Saddam`s troops from Kuwait by military force in 1990 and overthrowing Saddam in 2003 and contributing to the establishment of a democratic system. Given the challenges of the fight against terrorism affecting the world and Iraq`s urgent need for investment and contributions from American companies to the reconstruction process, the Iraqi government would be very helpful to have the United States as strategic allies.

These two agreements protect American interests in the Middle East, help the Iraqi people to remain alone and strengthen Iraqi sovereignty. 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[53] Poland[53] Macedonia,[53] Japan,[54] Bosnia,[53] South Korea[53] and Georgia. The Iraqi and British governments are said to have negotiated a security agreement similar to Iraq and the United States. Status of the armed forces agreement. The pact, which could be informal, expected the role of British troops to be minimal by the end of 2009. With the British and American military, a small force of two or three other countries should remain. [53] On 1 July 2008, Zebari stated that he had informed members of the Iraqi parliament that the United States.