Yep - which is why not being able to guarantee immunity from prosecution was a major factor in the decision.
Ian
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) are not "immunity from prosecution" or freedom to commit war crimes.
Do you object to the SOFA the UK has for its soldiers stationed in the United States? The United States and the UK are currently party to more than 100 agreements considered SOFAs.
A SOFA establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security arrangement. The pacts govern everything from the duration of troop bases, to the handling of estate matters of deceased personnel. The proposal in Iraq for example would provide basic rights such as criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces will be subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies may retain their SOFA rights. If U.S. forces commit (still undecided) "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to procedures that would be laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.
Would you support a soldier held indefinitely on an accusation that he looked at an Arab woman? Without a SOFA, that's what you can get.
For example, there CURRENTLY is a status of forces agreement for the legal status of Americans (and other NATO Forces) stationed in Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Afghanistan, governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.
The SOFA discussion is a sideshow. The reality behind this is that the Maliki government (with its heavy Iranian - Muqtada Al-Sadr influence) wants the US combat power out of the region. They want the US training, equipment, money and the bases but not a material military threat to Iran. US combat leaders know they can't defend a force of several thousand trainers and logisticians without at least a brigade combat team and that size of a force is intolerable to the Iranians and therefore Al-Sadr and their proxies in the Maliki government.
This unilateral withdrawal is now an open door to the Iranians to dominate the region, a return to the Iraqi sectarian civil war and the Turks to settle a score with the Kurds and the NATO/US to lose a stabilizing presence in the most volatile region in the world.
But most troubling to me is that Muqtada Al-Sadr’s Day Brigade is now free to resume civil war and one has to hope it doesn’t parallel to historical atrocities such as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.