Tom Hayden is right to be very skeptical of the "security agreement," as the US calls it, or the "Withdrawal Agreement" as the Iraqis term it. The very fact that each side calls it by a different name hints at the lack of true agreement.
The US, with its media acolytes following, had been trumpeting the finalization of the agreement for months, only to have to back down with the "emegence" of unsettled issues. In reality, there apparently are so many unresolved issues , left to be dealt with later, that it is akin to an oral contract, which, it is said, "is not worth the paper it is printed on."
Speaking of a written treaty, where is the writing? Has the document been available to the public of each country? And if it is a treaty, which had to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, does not our Constitution require ratification by the Senate? If not, is it just a policy agreement with the present administration?
But finally as Hayden points out, the provisions for adjustment based on future security needs etc. means that the military powers will be calling the shots just as they have all along.
One wishes for more thorough and straight-talking government and media spokespeople.