Are U.S. troops coming home?

"TODAY IS a historic day for Iraqi-American relations," said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as Iraq's government signed a status of forces agreement November 17 that would authorize the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq through the end of 2011. The agreement now must be approved by a majority of Iraq's 275-seat parliament, which is expected to happen in the next week.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said the agreement ensured that "there shall be no permanent bases for the United States on Iraqi soil," and that "Iraq will remain a sovereign, free and independent state and have the absolute liberty to manage its own riches."

But Maliki also felt compelled to add that "the agreement contains no secret clauses"--an acknowledgment of the anger and mistrust that have characterized the debate surrounding negotiations.

The bulk of the Iraqi population bitterly opposes a continued U.S. presence and fears that the Maliki government might not disclose essential details about the agreement--a strategy that the U.S. is known to have employed to conceal unpopular clauses of similar agreements with other countries.

Shia cleric Moktada al-Sadr has called for a pan-Muslim Friday prayer in central Baghdad's Firdous Square followed by a massive peaceful demonstration against the agreement. "Let all unite to foil the signing of the agreement that sells Iraq to the occupier, just like our holy lands in Palestine and other Arab and Islamic lands were sold before," declared Sadr.

For months, the U.S. has put pressure on Iraq's government to sign the agreement, since the United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq expires at the end of 2008. But the Maliki government refused to go along until it was able to force several important concessions out of the U.S.

Not only did Iraq get the right to prosecute criminal acts committed by private contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton while on duty, but the U.S. is also now required to seek prior approval to carry out operations or place an Iraqi national under detention.

The U.S. did grant that American soldiers could also fall under Iraqi jurisdiction--but only in such limited circumstances that the concession is purely symbolic.

The U.S. also agreed not to use Iraq as a launching pad for operations in other countries in the region--a key provision for winning the approval of Iran's government, which could have used its ties to Iraq's Shia leadership to stall or scuttle signing of the agreement.

The agreement also calls for the pullback of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities, towns and villages by July 2009 to U.S. bases in Iraq as a transition to the full withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. The U.S. had sought to make such withdrawals contingent on improving conditions in Iraq, but the government refused to agree to that.

The significant concessions made by the U.S. are a dramatic shift in the situation from several months ago when it appeared that the U.S. had the ability to dictate terms to Iraq's government.

In the words of historian Gareth Porter, "The [agreement] represents a formal recognition of a remarkable shift in power relations between an occupying power and the state created under its protection. What had appeared to be a safely dependent client regime was instead a regime that was waiting for the right moment to assert real control over the military presence of that power."

SO DOES the signing of this agreement mean that it's only a matter of time before the U.S. occupation of Iraq comes to an end?

Despite the media coverage suggesting that this agreement puts a hard deadline on the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, many possible developments could "reopen" the question of whether American troops will actually leave Iraq in three years.

Maliki's rule is, in the last instance, still largely dependent on U.S. military power. For that reason, he has had to walk a fine line, standing up to the U.S. to maintain credibility among Iraqis who strongly oppose a continued U.S. presence in Iraq at the same time that he has sought to keep U.S. firepower around long enough to stabilize his own grip.

At the end of the three-year period, or even before then, U.S. and Iraqi officials could agree to extend the agreement or modify its terms. In fact, White House press secretary Dana Perino continued to call the deadlines for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq's population centers in 2009 and complete withdrawal in 2011 "aspirational dates."

There are still any number of divisive and potentially explosive issues that remain--the Kurdish north with its secessionist impulses, the Sunni Muslims who fear the further entrenchment of Shia political influence, and the tense negotiations surrounding rival Kurdish and Arab claims to control the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, among others.

If any of these were to break out into renewed fighting, revisions to the agreement would not only be possible but likely. For example, Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already said that the deadline for complete withdrawal could be extended.

And the president-elect, Barack Obama, has stated that, though he promised to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of taking office, he would consult with top military officials before making any decisions.

Now, the agreement gives Obama even more room to maneuver--with a date he didn't set for withdrawal in 2011 that could be put off further, while still allowing him to portray the Iraq war as a thing of the past as he prepares to increase the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The November election hasn't uprooted the U.S. agenda of using military means to project its power in the energy-rich and geopolitically important regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. But it has raised expectations of most Americans that the horrific bloodshed and expensive military adventures will finally come to an end.

Making these hopes into reality will still require the building of a vibrant antiwar movement to oppose the U.S. presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And this will require that activists rise to the challenge of explaining why the status of forces agreement doesn't guarantee an automatic end to the U.S. war on Iraq.