The big, old fat “cakewalk” security agreement between the US and Iraq might be in for some very heavy lifting in the next few weeks.

• BAGHDAD (AFP) – An Iraqi Shiite cleric on Friday denounced as “eternal slavery” a proposed security deal between Baghdad and Washington that outlines the long-term military presence of American forces in the country.
  “The suspect pact would be an eternal slavery for Iraq. It is against the constitution,” said Sheikh Asad al-Nasri, a member of the movement led by radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.”The government has no right to sign the pact which has been rejected by every political party,” he told worshippers at prayer in the holy town of Kufa, adding that the no Iraqi would be able to agree to it.
  …
  But criticism is rife in Iraq and neighbouring Iran over the agreement that would cover the rights and administration of foreign troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires at the end of the year.”Political entities should stick to their stand of rejecting the pact,” Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalaei, a representative of Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said in Karbala on Friday.
  — Agence France-Presse, (6/20/08)

Read the whole story here.

‘Eternal slavery’ is pretty much the words.
And before the Iraqis sign on the dotted line, they should ponder the history lesson obtained by Cuba and Colombia in agreeing with US interests — Guantanamo Bay and the Panama Canal.

And this piece of poop at The National Security Archive of George Washington University.
This so-called security agreement between the US and Iraq, this Status of Forces Agreement, this special “relationship” between the two countries — in the works since before the beginning.
We hadn’t seen this particular material, but knew the story:

• Washington D.C., June 13, 2008 – Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. military has long sought an agreement with Baghdad that gives American forces virtually unfettered freedom of action, casting into doubt the Bush administration’s current claims that their demands are more limited in scope.
  News reports have indicated that the Bush administration is exerting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to accept a U.S.-Iraq security plan by the end of July 2008.
  According to these accounts, the plan would give the U.S. more than 50 military bases in Iraq, provide complete freedom of action to conduct military operations, allow complete freedom to arrest and detain Iraqis, and grant U.S. forces and contractors total immunity from Iraqi law.
  Growing awareness of the implications of the pact have fueled opposition by the Iraqi public – to the extent that Prime Minister al-Maliki announced today that discussions had deadlocked.
  Documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the U.S. started drafting the agreement in November 2003.
  While information available in the heavily redacted copies that were provided does not specifically address such hot-button, present-day issues as the number and location of bases, or control of airspace, these preliminary planning documents show that from the outset U.S. aspirations for conducting military operations based in Iraq were essentially without limit.
  — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB252/index.htm

The National Security Archive is a real-good background site: It’s found here.

And if Decider George’s little security agreement doesn’t come about, it would put in jeopardy the real intent for the entire Iraqi exercise — oil.
The agreement now in the final stages between the Iraq Oil Ministry and the big oil giants will hinge on security — how to get the shit out of the ground with AK-47s sniping at your ass.
The answer: One can’t.

That’d be a real pisser.