Badger helps us to understand the complicate maneuverings in Iraq around the U.S.-Iraq Status of Force (SOFA) and Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA).

There is opposition to both of these to different degrees within the government fractions and within the opposition  groups. This has nothing to do with sectarianism but sets up the government side, which would not survive in its position without the U.S. forces, against the nationalist Shia and Sunni opposition.

As Badger translates from Al Hayat:

[O]bservers stressed that the latest version includes text relating to the establishment of 400 locations and bases [for the American forces], exemption [from Iraqi legal process] for American soldiers and citizens, and elimination of any responsibility [on the American side] for participation in the rebuilding of Iraq.

400 bases, of course not ‘permanent’ ones but only for a 100 years, must be about the number the U.S. currently has in Iraq. So effectively nothing would change.

Maliki may sign up such agreements when Crocker puts a gun to his head but I doubt that the Iraqi people will swallow that frog even under gunpoint, which of course they currently are anyway.

There is a nice line of disinformation coming from Ambassador Crocoker on this. Al Hayat via Badger:

"These protests [by Hakim and Hashemi respectively] have not stopped the Iraqi Foreign Ministry from announcing that the negotiations will be continued; and informed sources said Crocker has informed the Iraqi politicians that the US rejects holding a general referendum on the clauses of the agreement adding that it would be bad if Iraq were unable to exit from Clause 7" (of the UN charter, which governs the current status of US forces in the country).

"it would be bad if Iraq were unable to exit from Clause 7" – horseshit!!!

The current dubious legality of the U.S. in Iraq derives from the 2004 UN resolution 1546 (pdf). As CNN reported when that  resolution was approved:

[The resolution] also says the [Multinational] force will be able to take "all necessary measures to contribute to maintenance of security and stability" in Iraq and gives a 12-month deadline for the force to be reviewed.

Since then 1546 has been renewed, but the authority of the occupation troops WILL RUN OUT at the end of 2008. Global Policy Forum explains the resolution history:

[U]nder US/UK pressure, the Council has repeatedly renewed the mandate, in resolutions 1546, 1637 and 1723.
…
In late 2007, Washington and London again asked the Security Council to renew the MNF mandate, for an extension of another year. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki wrote to the Council to request a mandate renewal without referring the matter to parliament for ratification, as required by the Iraqi constitution. A majority of parliamentarians also had written a letter in April to Security Council members calling for a timetable for MNF withdrawal. The cabinet’s actions were unilateral, unconstitutional and illegal.

Iraqi parliamentarians wrote another letter to Security Council members immediately before Council action. Further, the US House of Representatives scheduled a hearing on the matter asking "Is the Iraqi Parliament Being Ignored?" But on December 18, under heavy pressure from Washington, the Council voted unanimously to extend the mandate for a further year.

There is no chance to do this stunt again if the situation in Iraq stays relatively quiet.

The December 2007 resolution is 1790 which prolonged the occupation to the end of 2008. Here is how the Security Council’s press office announced it:

Recognizing the request from Iraq, the Security Council today decided to extend the mandate of the multinational force in that country — “for the last time”, according to its Permanent Representative — until 31 December 2008.

Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1790 (2007), deciding further that the mandate would be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or no later than 15 June 2008.

The U.S. could probably get another year, ‘at the request of the Government of Iraq’, if it would instigate another civil war in Iraq in the second half of 2008 and if the Iraqi security forces would not be able to handle such. Even then I doubt that China or Russia would do a lame-duck Bush such a favor.

There is a real bind here. Bush/McCain need to point to a peaceful Iraq where the Iraqi forces have everything under control to have a chance to get another republican presidency. But the same picture makes a prolongation of the UN sanctioned current status of forces impossible.

Without a UN mandate and without a SOFA agreement U.S. forces in Iraq are illegal.

So unlike what Crooker tries to imply, that "Iraq were unable to exit from Clause 7", is not the problem – at least not for Iraqis. The problem is that any UN legal authority for U.S. forces in Iraq would run out and that on January 1 2009 the U.S. forces in Iraq would be just another rogue militia.

You say such legality does not matter? Then please explain why the U.S. administration is sweating over this at all.