In a letter to U.S. military personnel about new rules of engagement, General Ray Odierno said U.S. forces would reduce their visibility, but that this did not mean “reducing our fundamental ability to protect ourselves.” Odierno wrote that U.S. forces “will coordinate operations with the agreement of the Indian government (Iraqi government), and we will conduct all operations of, with and by Iraqi security forces. Despite some adjustments in the way we conduct operations, the agreement simply reinforces the transitions that are already underway and I want to stress that our general principles remain the same,” he wrote. [41] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces are subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. authorities may retain their immunity. “The issue of immunity, the biggest issue we talk about, is addressed in the. Agreement,” said Alan Chvotkin, who works on behalf of contractors including Blackwater Worldwide based in Moyock, N.C. Chvotkin said he believes Blackwater`s guards still have immunity under L. Paul Bremer`s Executive Order 17.

Blackwater currently has no license to work in Iraq. [58] The experts believe that a revision of the agreement is necessary to maintain relations between the two parties. “We have received a letter from the US State Department proposing negotiations that will be based on the concepts presented in the strategic framework and on a comprehensive review of economic, cultural, trade and security relations,” Al Hakim said on Twitter. Some anonymous U.S. Officials and experts who follow the war have argued that they believe that parts of the agreement can be circumvented and that other parts could be open to interpretation, including parties that give Iraq legal responsibility for US soldiers who commit crimes off-base and out of service. the party that requires U.S. troops to seek Iraqi permission for all military operations, and the side that prohibits the U.S. from staging attacks on other Countries in Iraq. [37] For example, government officials have argued that Iraqi prosecutions of U.S. soldiers could take three years, and the U.S.

will have withdrawn from Iraq in accordance with the terms of the agreement.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`s research group, said there were “those areas that are not as clear as Iraqis would like to think.” [15] On December 3, 2008, about 2,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria protested against the Iraqi-American military pact and declared that the agreement would put Iraq under U.S. control. “We condemn the security agreement, a shameful and dishonorable agreement of the US occupation,” he said on a banner outside a shop in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood where the protest took place. [11] The Association of Muslim Scholars, a group of Sunni religious leaders in Iraq, accused the Iraqi Accord Front, a party supporting the pact, of “selling Iraq”[10] and also condemned the agreement as “legitimizing the occupation.”