I'm a little lost...

Is there something I'm missing here?

I mean the Status of Forces Agreement isn't perfect. Hell, anything that doesn't call for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq falls short in my mind, but as far as things go, this isn't a bad deal for the Iraqis:

• U.S. Forces out of Iraqi Cities by June 30th.
  
• U.S. Forces out of Iraq in three years (yeah, I think we could do better).
  
• Increased Command and Control over U.S. Missions in Iraq by Iraqi Forces.
  
• Inspection of U.S. Cargo by Iraqi Forces.
  
• Occasional (if supervised) inspection of our Troops' mail by Iraqi Forces.
  
• Contractors working in Iraq losing all their Legal Protections. Priceless.

This was all summarized in this Countdown With Keith Olbermann Report (read by David Shuster) from November 20th:



The Iraqis seem to have a real problem with this deal, a deal that their own leaders admitted they wouldn't have signed if McCain won the election.

Several Iraqi officials said they were assured that President-elect Barack Obama would honor the agreement. During his campaign, Obama pledged to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq over his first 16 months in office, removing them by the summer of 2010.

Last I checked, Obama won, and now protests over the accord sprung up around the country, apparently at the behest of Muqtada al Sadr.

Tens of thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr packed a central Baghdad square Friday, where they protested a U.S.-Iraq security agreement and likened Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to fallen dictator Saddam Hussein.

Sheik Abdul Hadi al Mohammadawi read a nationalistic speech on behalf of Sadr urging a rejection of any pacts with the U.S., charging that approving one would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty.

The crowd chanted back, "Leave, leave, occupier."

Okay, I get it but...we're leaving. We're leaving.  Barack won the election.  We're outta there!  I would get the protesters chanting "Not Fast Enough! Not Fast Enough!" but they seem to be protesting the deal itself.