"That pronouncement, along with other moves indicating that the Iraqi position was hardening rather than preparing for a compromise, appeared to doom the Bush administration's plan to leave tens of thousands of military support personnel in Iraq indefinitely. The new Iraqi moves raise the obvious question of how a leader who was considered a safe U.S. client could have defied his patron on such a central U.S. strategic interest.

"Maliki declared Aug. 25 that the U.S. had agreed that "no foreign soldiers will be in Iraq after 2011." A Shi'ite legislator and Maliki ally, Ali al-Adeeb, told the Washington Post that only the Iraqi government had the authority under the agreement to decide whether conditions were conducive to a complete withdrawal. He added that the Iraqi government "could ask the Americans to withdraw before 2011 if we wish."

"It was also reported that Maliki has replaced his negotiating team with three of his closest advisers.

"These moves blindsided the Bush administration, which had been telling reporters that a favorable agreement was close. The Washington Post reported Aug. 22 and again Aug. 26 that the agreement on withdrawal would be "conditions-based" and would allow the United States to keep tens of thousands of non-combat troops in the country after 2011.

"The administration had assumed going into the negotiations that Maliki would remain a U.S. client for a few years because of the Iraqi government's dependence on the U.S. military to build a largely Shi'ite Iraqi army and police force and defeat the main insurgent threats to his regime.

"Maliki has hardly hidden his opposition to U.S. ambitions to maintain a major long-term role in Iraq. One of his first moves was to propose negotiating a timetable for complete U.S. withdrawal with the Sunni insurgents. He soon clashed with U.S. officials over their determination to launch a campaign against Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr had been a key political ally of Maliki, and the Mahdi Army was an important asset in a broader Shi'ite campaign to eliminate Sunni political-military power in Baghdad."

And Moqtada al-Sadr, the consistent wild card throughout the occupation...now you see him, now you don't, has again reasserted his presence and the importance of his followers in a peaceful show of force.

As Reuters reports: "Thousands of Shi'ites protested against the U.S. presence in Iraq, heeding orders from anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for a peaceful show of force on the first Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"Crowds of people waved photos of the reclusive cleric, dancing and shouting, following Friday prayers in Sadr City, a Shi'ite stronghold in northeastern Baghdad.

"Several men burned a red, white and blue flag as they pledged support for the reclusive Sadr.

"We all support you, Sayyid Moqtada! We are your soldiers!" they shouted, addressing Sadr by a title of respect.

"In the southern holy city of Najaf, several hundred protesters turned out for a parallel protest. "No, no to occupation!" read one banner.

" 'Everybody knows that the goals of American wars are commercial. They use war to drain desperate nations economically and socially,' he told the crowd.

"The protests came as attention focused on the future of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sought assurances from Washington about gradually reducing its military activities in the country."

The majority of Iraqis (and a majority of Americans) want all US troops out of Iraq, and the Bushite illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq based on lies that has cost Iraq and the US so much, while the Bush regime has been dictating to the sovereign country that the US invaded in 2003, may be coming to an end courtesy of the Iraqis despite the imperialist Bushite demands.