Pentagon chief says still focused on Iraq deal
10 Jun 2008 02:24:03 GMTSource: Reuters
LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va., June 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday dismissed suggestions that the United States should abandon plans to secure an agreement that would provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires this year.
He indicated the Pentagon was not ready to ask the United Nations to renew that mandate despite disagreements with the Iraqi government over a new arrangement now being negotiated -- known as a status of forces agreement or SOFA.
"I think that we are going to continue working with the Iraqis on the SOFA," Gates told reporters during a visit to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. "That's still the focus."
"I think there are multiple ways this thing could come out. Right now as far as I know we're still focused on the SOFA, at least from the Department of Defense's point of view."
The United Nations mandate authorizing the presence of U.S.-led forces in Iraq after the 2003 invasion expires at the end of 2008. The status of forces agreement would provide a legal basis for troops to stay and could set restrictions on their activities.
The United States and Iraq are also negotiating a second long-term deal known as a strategic framework agreement that would outline in a broad way the two states' political, diplomatic and economic relationship.
But the negotiations have been criticized both in Iraq and the United States.
---------------
U.S.'s Rice in Baghdad, says troops deal close
21 Aug 2008 13:52:56 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Updates after news conference)
By David Alexander and Peter Graff
BAGHDAD, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The United States and Iraq are close to a deal extending the presence of U.S. troops beyond 2008, but any timetable for their withdrawal must be "feasible", U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday.
Rice, who flew to Baghdad on an unannounced visit, denied reports that the deal has already been reached but said it was close and she was hoping to iron out any remaining questions with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari also said the deal was "very close", and would include "time horizons" for U.S. withdrawal. He repeatedly stressed that the agreement would be temporary. But neither side would confirm any specific details.
"We'll have agreement when we have agreement. So all of those stories in the newspapers about what the agreement says probably ought to be disregarded until we have an agreement," Rice told a news conference alongside Zebari.
Anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr denounced the pact and said Washington was trying to twist Baghdad's arm to sign it.
The long-awaited pact will allow U.S. forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of this year, when a U.N. Security Council mandate enacted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 expires.
Replacing the U.N. mandate with a formal U.S.-Iraqi pact is seen as a milestone in Iraq's emergence as a sovereign state, giving Baghdad direct say over the presence of foreign troops on its soil for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
But the deal's terms are politically sensitive in both countries, with Maliki determined to show that the 144,000 U.S. troops will not stay longer than needed, and U.S. President George W. Bush keen to avoid a firm schedule for them to leave.
"We are continuing to work to make sure that any timelines that are in the agreement really do reflect what we believe can be done, what's feasible," Rice told reporters on board her plane before her arrival. "Obviously everybody is going to keep an eye on conditions on the ground."
DRAFT
Iraqi officials have said they would like to see U.S. forces cease routine patrols on Iraqi streets by the middle of next year and withdraw all combat troops by 2010 or 2011. But it is not clear how explicit such language would be in the agreement.
Iraq's chief negotiator Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud told Reuters on Wednesday a draft of the agreement was complete and would be presented to Iraqi political leaders to approve and send to parliament. He said the draft did not include withdrawal dates.
Other issues that need to be tackled include immunity for U.S. troops from Iraqi law and the status of prisoners held by American forces. U.S. forces hold some 21,000 prisoners in Iraq they deem dangerous but have not charged with any crime.
Sadr denounced both Rice's visit and the pact.
"Today, Condoleezza Rice, the occupation foreign secretary, arrived in Iraq to try to put pressure on the government of Iraq to accept terms dictated by the occupation to sign this ominous treaty," said a statement read out by Sadr political adviser Liwa Smeism at the cleric's office in Najaf.
A commitment to withdraw combat troops in 2010 would resemble the plan offered by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who wants them out by mid-2010.
The Bush administration and Republican candidate John McCain say troop reductions are likely but they do not want to commit to a firm timetable. The administration began speaking in July of "time horizons" and "aspirational goals" for withdrawal.
Rice said she would also discuss Iraq's failure to enact an election law to allow provincial polls due on Oct. 1 to take place on time.
The election law was held up in parliament because of a dispute between Kurds and other groups over how to run the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk, despite strong U.S. pressure for Iraqi politicians to reach a deal. (Reporting by Khalid al-Ansary and Peter Graff in Baghdad and Khaled Farhan in Najaf; Editing by Sami Aboudi)
U.S. Democrats say the Bush administration could use the agreements to tie the next president into current Iraq war policies. They also have complained that the Bush administration has not consulted on the agreements.
While little information about the negotiations has been released, the Iraqi government has made clear it disagrees with the United States on the deals.
The spokesman for Iraq's government this month said Iraq was looking into possible alternatives if it could not reach a deal, but he gave no details. (Reporting by Kristin Roberts; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
-----------
2 Shiite militia leaders surrender in Iraq
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Two suspected Shiite militia leaders surrendered Friday during raids by U.S. forces, while tens of thousands of Shiite faithful streamed out of mosques to join protests against a security agreement with the United States.
Such rallies have erupted weekly following a call by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the deal, which could lead to a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
The arrests and demonstrations came on the eve of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's trip to Iran, the second such visit in a year. A U.S. campaign against Shiite militiamen and the U.S.-Iraq security pact would likely be on the agenda for his talks there.
One of the men who surrendered early Friday is suspected of ordering attacks on U.S. troops, directing the kidnapping of Iraqis and smuggling Iranian weapons and Katyusha rockets into Iraq, according to a statement from the U.S. military. The other suspect tried to flee by wading through an irrigation canal, before turning himself over to U.S. soldiers.
The U.S. said the men were members of Iranian-backed "special groups" — language the American military uses to describe Shiite fighters defying al-Sadr's cease-fire order.
Some of the men are believed to have fled recent fighting in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, but others have been based for years in swaths of overwhelmingly Shiite territory south of the Iraqi capital. The area is home to several of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines.
Such arrests have become an almost daily occurrence in Iraq, where U.S. forces are seeking to thwart the movement of Iranian weapons into Iraq. Washington accuses Iran of arming and training Shiite militiamen, but Tehran denies that.
Al-Maliki was due in Iran on Saturday, as protests grew more amplified in Iraq against a proposed security agreement with America.
The deal, which the Iraqis and Americans hope to finish by midsummer, would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a parallel agreement would provide a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
Supporters believe the deal would help assure Iraq's Arab neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, that Iraq's Shiite-led government would not become a satellite of Iran, the largest Shiite nation, as the American military role here fades.
But critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Some Iraqi politicians have attacked the deal, especially those loyal to al-Sadr, whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Sadr City for seven weeks this spring, until a truce in May.
The cleric himself is believed to be living in the Iranian city of Qom.
Al-Maliki's Dawa party has described talks over the U.S.-Iraqi security pact as stalled, with almost every provision under dispute. The party has also sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country — a reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack.
At a mosque in Tehran on Saturday, prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told worshippers the U.S.-Iraq agreement would surely fail.
"The Iraqi nation will not accept it ... If it is signed, it will separate the Iraqi government from its people," Jannati said.
But in Iraq's Shiite holy city of Najaf, cleric Sadralddin al-Qubanji said the agreement could be acceptable, but only if included a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
"This agreement is not blasphemy ... If it guarantees the withdraw of the occupation, we are with it, but if it gives the occupation deeper roots, we reject it," he told worshippers.
At another mosque in nearby Kufa, thousands of faithful filing out of Friday prayers erupted into an impromptu demonstration, chanting "No, America, no! Iraq will not be an American colony!"
Thousands more filed out of mosques in Sadr City, waving photos of al-Sadr and unfurling banners protesting the proposed pact. "As long as Muqtada opposes it, no agreement will be signed!" some chanted.
A preacher in Kut told his mosque: "This agreement achieves the interests and the plans of the occupier."
"It can never be applied as long as Muqtada and his followers are alive," Sheik Najim al-Khafaji said.
The challenge for al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, is to maintain ties with Iran while at the same time ensuring his support from the United States. He needs to persuade the Iranians to rein in Shiite extremists but also assure them that security ties to the U.S. would not threaten the Islamic Republic.
Also Friday, a suicide bomber that Iraqi police said they believed was a woman exploded herself near a checkpoint in a village outside Ramadi, wounding two policemen. Police said they were searching for another woman who fled the scene and may have been a second bomber.
Ramadi is the capital of Iraq's western Anbar province, which saw heavy fighting with al-Qaida-linked militants until Sunni Arab sheiks began partnering with U.S. forces there in 2006.
The U.S. military issued three additional statements Friday saying its soldiers killed four suspects and captured more than 57 others in raids earlier in the week in Baghdad and across northern Iraq.
___
Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi contributed to this report from Tehran, Iran.
----------------
New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq
By Basil Adas, CorrespondentPublished: June 03, 2008, 13:42
Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.
Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.
Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.
The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.
The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."
The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.
He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.
The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.
Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.
Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.
-----------
Semantics: A time table or a horizon!
Author: Adnan
Date: 23-07-08 12:15
Subject: Semantics:
A time table or a horizon for US withdrawal from Iraq!
After failing to persuade the Iraqis of the need to extend the hated American presence in the country, the Whitehouse and its client regime in Baghdad green zone, started to play with words hoping to confuse the people. To start with there is an overwhelming Iraqi rejection of any long-term US military presence as it will undermine Iraq sovereignty and mortgage Iraqi resources to US corporations. For this reason, the Iraqis are calling for a definite and unconditional timetable into which all US troops must leave the country. But the Americans want a 'horizon' for withdrawal with a dateline to be set sometime in the future; pending the improvement in security. That is where the catch is, since most of the violence in Iraq is caused by the American occupation. Furthermore, security in Iraq can be easily undermined by Negroponte Death Squads, CIA dirty-work gangs and US-paid mercenaries, to ensure the presence of US troops in the country for an indefinite time. Unlike the American political Zombies, the Iraqis are not a nation of fools. As Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has already indicated, the Americans must end their brutal occupation with a period of one to two years, full stop. No-one, including the Americans, will do anything contrary to Al-Sistani wish.
Bush wanted the Iraqis to sign the long-term security agreement before the end of July. I tell you here that no Iraqi will sign any agreement with America as long as Al-Sistani remains alive.
The days of the American presence in Iraq are numbered, regardless who will be in the Whitehouse.
---
Iraq: US sought troop presence to 2015, agreed 2011
27 Aug 2008 08:16:28 GMT
Source: Reuters
BAGHDAD, Aug 27 (Reuters) - The United States asked Iraq for permission to keep its troops there to 2015, but U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorisation to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.
"It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party's website.
-----------
AP
Iraqi PM: Top cleric won't block US pact
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Friday that the country's most influential Shiite cleric will leave the decision on the future of U.S. troops to the government and parliament — a step that could remove a major obstacle to a deal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tension rose in the Iraqi capital Friday as a car bomb killed 13 people in a Shiite enclave and thousands of Shiites marched to mourn the assassination of a lawmaker which their leaders blamed on the Americans.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, journeyed Friday to the Shiite holy city of Najaf to brief Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani about the progress in talks with the U.S. on a security agreement governing operations of American forces starting next year.
After a 2 1/2-hour meeting, al-Maliki told reporters that the Iranian-born cleric would not oppose the security deal if it is approved by the country's democratic institutions — including parliament, which must ratify the pact.
"He does not want anything forced or imposed on the Iraqi people," al-Maliki said. "Rather he wants it to be done through the institutions. If the government and the parliament approve this, then (al-Sistani) will be convinced that is what the Iraqi people have decided."
Al-Sistani's office had no comment.
However, it would be politically untenable for al-Maliki to accept a deal and send it to parliament for ratification if al-Sistani spoke out publicly against it.
Al-Sistani's earlier insistence that only elected officials draft Iraq's first constitution after the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein forced the United States to change its blueprint for the country's transition to democratic rule.
Al-Sistani also pressured the Americans to agree to the first post-Saddam elections in January 2005, even though many U.S. officials believed the country was too unstable for meaningful balloting.
American and Iraqi officials have said they are close to an agreement that would replace the U.N. mandate for U.S. forces in Iraq; the mandate expires Dec. 31. But the most contentious issue — legal jurisdiction and immunity for U.S. troops under Iraqi law — remains unresolved.
Al-Maliki said the U.S. had made major concessions, including agreeing to pull U.S. forces back to their bases by the end of June and to a full withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011.
President Bush had steadfastly refused for years to set a timetable for a troop withdrawal, saying that should depend on security conditions on the ground. Iraqi politicians say they cannot sell the deal to their war-weary public without a timeline for the end of the U.S. presence.
However, one senior U.S. official, close to the talks, confirmed Friday that the Americans had agreed to the June and 2011 dates.
The official, who requested anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said the United States still believes that security conditions should determine the withdrawal schedule but that Washington can live with the language in the draft deal.
Iraqi officials have said the U.S. departure could be delayed if the government asks the U.S. to stay.
Neighboring Iran strongly opposes the agreement, fearing it would leave open the possibility of a U.S. military presence on its western border.
U.S. officials accuse Iran of arming and training Iraqi Shiite extremists, who could use violence to pressure the government against the deal. Iran denies any links to Shiite extremists.
As the government moves toward a decision on the security deal, tensions have been rising within the Shiite community. A roadside bomb Thursday killed a prominent Shiite lawmaker loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-U.S. cleric who lives in Iran and opposes the security agreement.
U.S. officials suspected Shiite splinter groups were responsible for killing the politician, Saleh al-Auqaeili, a moderate within the Sadrist movement. But many of al-Sadr's followers blame the Americans and the Iraqi government.
In Baghdad, thousands of Sadrists marched through the sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City behind a car carrying al-Auqaeili's coffin. A statement from al-Sadr read out loud during the procession praised al-Auqaeili for dedicating himself to "getting the occupier out of Iraq."
The march followed overnight clashes in Sadr City in which one American soldier was wounded, the U.S. military said. The fighting, though small-scale, was a sign that Shiite extremists are trying to rebound after losing control of their Sadr City stronghold in fighting last spring.
The car bomb exploded in the main outdoor market in Abu Dshir, a Shiite enclave in the Dora neighborhood, where Sunni-Shiite tensions had been running high last year. The blast ripped the fronts off shops and set several of them ablaze.
Police and hospital officials said 13 people were killed and 27 wounded. The U.S. military gave a lower toll, saying four civilians were killed and 14 wounded in the attack. Differing casualty tolls are common in Iraq.
Earlier Friday, a roadside bomb struck a minibus in another part of Dora, killing one passenger and wounding 12. The U.S. military said 10 civilians were wounded.
In the northern city of Mosul, four people were killed and 20 wounded when a roadside bomb detonated Friday near an Iraqi police patrol, the U.S. military said.
U.S. and Iraqi troops have been trying for months to drive al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni militants from Mosul, the country's third largest city.
___
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and Mazin Yahya in Baghdad contributed to this report.
--------------------
Thousands march in Baghdad against U.S. pact 18 Oct 2008 07:21:51 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Peter Graff
BAGHDAD, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Thousands of followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took to the streets on Saturday in a demonstration against a pact that would allow U.S. forces to stay in Iraq for three more years.
Marchers waved Iraqi flags and chanted "Yes, yes Iraq! No, no to the occupation!"
"It is a peaceful demonstration, demanding that the occupier leave and the government not sign the pact," Ahmed al-Masoudi, a Sadrist member of parliament, told Reuters.
Demonstrators set fire to a U.S. flag, but the atmosphere appeared mostly peaceful.
Iraqi authorities said the demonstration was authorised and security had been increased to protect the protesters, who were marching from Sadr's stronghold of Sadr City in the east of the capital to a nearby public square at a university.
"They have permission from the prime minister and the interior minister to hold a peaceful demonstration," the government's Baghdad security spokesman Qassim Moussawi said.
"It is a part of democracy that people can protest freely, but we hope that they will understand the security measures that we have taken to protect them," he said. Male and female security screeners were in place to search bags on the route.
Sadrists described the event as a rescheduled "million man march" initially called in April when Sadr followers were battling U.S. forces in Baghdad and the south. But now, with little fighting taking place, the numbers appeared much smaller.
Still, the show of strength by Sadr's followers was a reminder to the government of the hostility among much of the public to the pact with the United States.
The pact would replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the U.S. presence and give Iraq's elected government authority over the U.S. force for the first time.
It must be approved by Iraq's parliament, and support is far from assured, even though Iraq won important concessions from Washington over the course of months of negotiations.
U.S. officials have yet to explain the pact in public, but Iraqi leaders have disclosed its contents.
The pact commits the United States to end patrols of Iraqi streets by mid-2009 and withdraw fully from the country by the end of 2011 unless Iraq asks for them to stay, an apparent reversal for a U.S. administration long opposed to deadlines.
It also describes certain conditions under which Iraq would have the right to try U.S. service members in its courts for serious crimes committed while off duty.
In Washington, officials in the administration of President George W. Bush briefed members of Congress about the pact on Friday and sought reassure them that it protects U.S. troops.
"I think there is not reason to be concerned," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters, adding that top military brass were happy with the protections in the pact. (Additional reporting by Waleed Ibrahim; Editing by Dominic Evans)
-------------------
Iraq's PM slams top US soldier over Iran comments
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 17, 5:59 pm ET Play Video CNN – Lessons learned from war
Slideshow: Iraq Play Video Video: Iraqi Christians targeted CNN Play Video Video: Last stand for Al Qaeda in Iraq? Reuters AP – Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, right, meets with the US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top … BAGHDAD – Iraq's prime minister said in remarks aired Friday that the top U.S. commander in Iraq "risked his position" by alleging Iran was trying to bribe lawmakers to vote against the proposed security agreement with the United States.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki briefed top political leaders Friday about the draft agreement, which includes a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011 and a compromise giving Iraq authority to try U.S. contractors and soldiers for major crimes committed off-duty and off-base.
A government statement said the same group — including President Jalal Talabani, the two vice presidents and leaders of parliament — would meet again in a few days, suggesting some people raised objections.
One lawmaker who attended the meeting said there were discussions for and against the draft and that two Shiite parties boycotted the session. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.
"There were thorough and important comments," presidential spokesman Nasser al-Ani said. "To the political and national blocs, the agreement remains in the phase of analysis and study."
In an interview published Monday in the Washington Post, Gen. Ray Odierno, who took command of the U.S.-led coalition last month, said U.S. intelligence reports indicated Iran has tried to bribe Iraqi lawmakers to derail the agreement, which must be approved by parliament before the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
"The American commander has risked his position when he spoke in this tone and has regrettably complicated relations," al-Maliki told visiting Kuwaiti journalists Thursday. "How can he speak like this about a baseless allegation? What has been said is truly regrettable."
Odierno and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker met Talabani on Friday and al-Ani, the presidential spokesman, said he understood that Odierno has offered an apology.
The U.S. military did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The unusually sharp tone of al-Maliki's remarks, aired Friday on Iraqi television, underlined the political sensitivities of both the draft agreement and Iraq's relations with Iran, which opposes the deal.
Many Shiite politicians lived in exile in Iran when Saddam Hussein was in power, returning home after the 2003 ouster of his Sunni-led regime. They include many of the lawmakers al-Maliki needs to ratify the agreement.
Al-Maliki's aides say the prime minister will hold a series of consultations before submitting the draft to parliament in order to measure public opinion and build political support for the pact. The Shiite leader could be politically isolated if he tries to win parliament's backing in the face of widespread opposition.
During the meeting with Kuwaiti journalists, al-Maliki said he had shown the full text to national leaders "with its positives, weaknesses and negatives" — a tacit acknowledgment that Iraq didn't get everything it wanted in the tortuous negotiations.
Al-Maliki did not elaborate but said his consultations showed he wanted to decide on the draft accord "through national consensus."
But several Sunni and Shiite clerics, who wield considerable influence in shaping public opinion, spoke out Friday against the draft, complaining that the Iraqi public knows little about the terms.
"The agreement that is supposed to be signed between Iraq and the U.S. is more dangerous than the occupation," Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abdul-Jabar told the congregation in Baghdad's Abu Hanifa mosque, the most prestigious Sunni shrine in the capital.
"It is illegal and the government should not sign it," Abdul-Jabar said. "The government should get the approval of the Iraqi people through a popular referendum."
At another Baghdad mosque, Shiite cleric Sadralddin al-Qubanji criticized the secrecy that surrounded the months of negotiations with the Americans.
He said the agreement "might be negative or positive" and called on the government to do a better job informing the public about the details.
"There is no national unanimity about it," al-Qubanji said.
Al-Qubanji's noncommittal remarks were significant because he is associated with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the biggest Shiite party and al-Maliki's partner in the government. It holds 30 of the 275 seats in parliament that al-Maliki needs to ensure a strong majority vote on the agreement.
But the Supreme Council has not announced a stand on the agreement, a move party members say was designed to distance it from the prime minister in case the deal meets significant opposition.
Key council leaders have close ties to Iran.
The political movement loyal to anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which also holds 30 parliament seats, has come out strongly against the agreement and plans to hold a mass rally Saturday in the capital's Sadr City district to reinforce that message.
During a sermon Friday in Najaf, al-Sadr aide Sheik Assad al-Nasseri said the demonstration would demand "the occupier leave Iraq unconditionally."
Al-Nasseri said the Sadrists would continue to oppose the deal "whatever the concessions that the government claims to have gotten."
A copy of the draft, obtained by The Associated Press, shows that the Iraqis won some major concessions, including a date for the U.S. troop withdrawal but with the provision that the government could ask for some soldiers to stay for training and support.
The U.S. also said the Iraqis could get first crack at prosecuting soldiers and contractors accused of serious, premeditated crimes off base and while not on duty. It was unclear whether many Americans would fall under those categories in a combat zone where movements are restricted.
American troops would not be allowed to search homes or hold detainees without a warrant from an Iraqi court.
-------
The American politicians and military commanders have been putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to expedite signing the so-called security agreement before December 31; allowing the US military occupation to continue indefinitely (tentatively until end of 2011). To start with, it is not a mere security agreement as it has secret annexes stipulating the US prerogative to interfere in most aspects of Iraqi life including the economic, political, educational and judicial matters. The fact that the US forces will be permitted to arrest any Iraqi, without consulting the Iraqi government, is vehemently rejected by everyone as it may lead to arresting the same politicians currently occupying the green Zone. Up to now 22.10.08 all indications point toward a refusal to sign the agreement before Nov. 4 US election and probably never in its present form. In reality, all politicians are afraid of the people which made them releuctant to putting their signature on such a humiliating agreement that violates Iraq sovereignty. In 1948, the Iraqi people rejected similar agreement with Britain, forcing Mr Saleh Jabur, the PM at the time, to resign and to flee the country. I seriously advise the Americans to pack up and leave as their presence is the cause of all violence in the country. Iraq is for the Iraqis, full stop.
Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times
----------
Iraq's prime minister won't sign U.S. troop deal
By Roy Gutman | McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — Fearing political division in the parliament and in his country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading lawmaker said Friday.
The new accord's demise would be a major setback for the Bush administration, which has been seeking to establish a legal basis for the extended presence of the 151,000 U.S. troops in this country, and for Iraq, which won notable concessions in the draft accord reached a week ago.
"No, he will not" submit the agreement to the parliament, Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy. "For this matter, we need national consensus."
Instead, Sagheer said, Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate for the presence of U.S. troops, which will expire on Dec. 31. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has assured Iraq that it wouldn't veto an extension, he said, adding that one was likely to last between six months and a year.
Ali al Adeeb, the chief of staff of Maliki's Dawa party, said Wednesday that the Iraqi parliament "cannot approve this pact in its current form."
Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if the agreement isn't signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq's forces "will not be ready to provide for their security" after the current U.N. mandate runs out. "And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence," Mullen said.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA Today: "Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations."
Iraqis, however, are adamant that the accord must be open to further amendments if they're to approve it.
"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national television.
He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the best he could obtain, but it didn't include everything that Iraq wanted.
If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament, "I'm sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years," Sagheer said.
The cleric said the draft accord was "good, in general," but its timing was bad. If an Iraqi negotiator accepted the agreement, "he will be taken as an agent for the Americans," and if he were to reject it, "he will be taken for an agent for Iran."
A second factor is that the accord comes just before the U.S. elections, and an Iraqi negotiator had to ask whether it was best to negotiate with the lame-duck Bush administration or wait for its successor. More important, Sagheer said, are the approaching provincial elections in Iraq, which could be held early next year.
"Iraqi politicians don't want to give their competitors the chance to use this agreement to destroy them," he said.
The accord contains a number of American concessions, calling for U.S. troops to withdraw to their bases by June 2009 and to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — both dates subject to extension, but only if the Iraqi government requests it.
The accord also would allow Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops except when they're on U.S. bases or on military operations, strips private military contractors of U.S. legal protection and reclaims control over Baghdad's "Green" zone, the location of the U.S. Embassy and military headquarters and much of the Iraqi government's headquarters.
Sagheer said that setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal was a "historic" accomplishment.
He also acknowledged that an extension of the current U.N. mandate might not reflect the gains made in the status of forces draft.
"For everything there is a price," he said. "And although (the accord) has many advantages, it also has many disadvantages, as it does for the coalition forces."
The problem for Iraqis, he said, was "the feeling with some of the parties that America has no intention of withdrawing within the timetable." Iraqis, he said, had so many negative experiences while a British mandate under the League of Nations from 1920 to 1932 that they fear a written agreement. "We have the feeling that if the Iraqi government accepts the demands, it will give a legal right to be occupied, so we don't have any kind of sovereignty."
Other politicians said that if Washington agrees to extend the negotiations, the talks will never end.
"This is all a game to win time. When the current issues are settled, they will just find new ones. . . . They are delaying to appease Iran," said Mithal al Alusi, a secular Sunni legislator whos' critical of the current Shiite-led government.
(Corinne Reilly of the Merced, Calif., Sun-Star, and McClatchy special correspondents Hussein Kadhim and Mohamed al Dulaimy contributed to this article.)
-----
Iraq Head, Top Cleric Back 2011 Exit by U.S.
Supporters of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr chant slogans next to a banner picturing Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a revered Shiite religious leader and father of Muqtada al-Sadr as they demonstrate against the proposed security pact between Iraq and the U.S., in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, Iraq, Friday, Nov. 14, 2008. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Friday renewed threats to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they don't leave Iraq, deepening the unease over a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would allow American troops to stay for three more years.(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
BAGHDAD, Nov. 15 -- Iraq's prime minister and its most influential Shiite cleric have decided to support a security agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in the country until the end of 2011, sharply increasing its chances of passage in the Iraqi parliament, officials said Saturday.
Approval of the so-called status of forces agreement would be a cause for relief among Bush administration officials, who have grown increasingly concerned that U.S. forces would begin the new year with no legal basis to remain in Iraq. A U.N. mandate authorizing their presence is set to expire Dec. 31.
A delegation of Shiite lawmakers and government officials met Saturday with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to review the latest changes to the agreement, and the cleric "gave the Iraqi side the green light to sign it," according to an official in Sistani's office who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Sistani's views carry great weight among members of the Shiite parties that dominate Iraq's government.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made clear his own support for the agreement and has received assurances from nearly all the parties in the cabinet that they would back it, said an adviser, Sami al-Askari.
A senior U.S. official in Baghdad, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, called Maliki's decision "an important and positive step."
Many Iraqi politicians have withheld public endorsement of the accord because of wariness about appearing too pro-American in the run-up to provincial elections expected in late January. In addition, Iran has been pressuring legislators to end the U.S. presence, according to American and Iraqi officials.
But the Iraqi government also managed to wrest some face-saving changes in the document in last-minute wrangling. The current draft sets a fixed, end-of-2011 deadline for the departure of U.S. forces, unlike earlier versions that said the U.S. military presence could be extended if Iraq requested it.
An aide to President-elect Barack Obama said Saturday that Obama supports the principle underlying the agreement but had not yet seen the specifics of the text. The aide recalled that, during the campaign, Obama said its completion before the end of the year was "critical . . . so that our troops have the protection they need."
The agreement would not affect Obama's pledge to withdraw most U.S. combat forces within 16 months of his inauguration. The document says nothing about when a drawdown would begin, the rate of departure or accomplishing it earlier than 2011.
The cabinet is expected to sign off on the bilateral accord Sunday or Monday, said Askari, a lawmaker who belongs to Maliki's Dawa party. Askari said the only holdout in the cabinet is the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group led by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. His spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Askari said "the difficult part will be the parliament," which must also approve the agreement. But most of the parties represented in the cabinet are expected to urge their lawmakers to fall in line. Maliki's support for the accord was first reported by McClatchy Newspapers and the Los Angeles Times.
Opposition to the agreement in parliament is expected to come from the party of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which controls 30 of the 275 seats and has held frequent demonstrations against the pact.
In addition, parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a member of a small Sunni party, "is not full-hearted behind the agreement," Askari said. However, a source in Mashhadani's office said Saturday that the speaker had decided to back the accord. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The last-minute concessions made by U.S. authorities appear to be mainly symbolic, according to officials from both sides. U.S. officials did not give in on the Iraqis' main demand, which was that Iraq be given greater jurisdiction over American troops who commit major crimes while off duty.
Still, Iraqi politicians got enough minor changes to claim victory on an agreement that the country's defense and interior ministers have called vital to maintaining stability.
For example, the U.S. side agreed to scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested, according to one official close to the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity.
But nothing prevents the Iraqis from seeking such an extension, according to congressional staffers briefed by U.S. officials last week in Washington.
The deputy parliament speaker, Khalid al-Attiya, said after leading a delegation to the city of Najaf to visit Sistani that "the Americans have responded positively on two important amendments. The first one is the Americans should withdraw from cities and suburbs on June 30, 2009, and the second one is that Americans should leave Iraq in 2011."
The Bush administration has always envisioned the accord as an executive agreement, which does not require congressional approval. Bush has consistently told Congress that the status of forces accord and an accompanying strategic framework agreement are "nonbinding" and would not tie the hands of a new president. But experts said its terms are enforceable under international law.
Obama has said that Congress should have a chance to review the document before it is signed by Bush, although he has stopped short of demands by some lawmakers that they should be given the same veto power accorded the Iraqi parliament.
The president-elect's policy calls for a "residual force" of an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. He has also conditioned ongoing U.S. training for the Iraqi security forces on progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington and special correspondents Qais Mizher and Zaid Sabah in Baghdad, Dlovan Brwari in Mosul and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.
------
The SOFA comprises two sections, security chapters initially drafted by the Americans and the general document, the "strategic framework agreement", put together by the Iraqis.
On November 5, the United States gave Iraq its amended version of the pact and stated the negotiations were finished.
"The total withdrawal will be completed by Dec. 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground. This date is specific and final," Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told reporters.
Dabbagh initially said the cabinet's vote was unanimous, but later said the pact was supported by 27 out of 28 cabinet members at the cabinet meeting. He said major factions in parliament had also indicated their support.
The cabinet approved the agreement after a two and a half hour meeting, with 27 ministers voting for it, one minister abstaining, and the remaining 10 skipping the meeting, according to a minister who voted in favour.
The draft would place the U.S. force in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government for the first time, replacing a U.N. Security Council mandate enacted after the U.S. invasion.
It calls for U.S. forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of next year. Dabbagh said U.S. forces would hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009 and would lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.
The draft agreement includes 31 articles and calls for US troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and from the entire country by the end of 2011.
Under the agreement an executive and a technical committee will be established to investigate "violations" committed by US forces, Dabbagh said, without giving further details.
Iraq had demanded the right to prosecute alleged crimes committed by US troops and foreign contractors, while the United States agreed to lift their immunity only for those who committed crimes off-duty and off their bases.
Dabbagh said Iraq had succeeded in securing the right to investigate all cargo being brought into and out of the country, another key demand it had made in the negotiations.
And the agreement will transfer the estimated 16,400 detainees currently being held by US forces to Iraqi custody, where judges will decide their fate.
Followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are the only big group in parliament that still openly opposes the pact.
"Today the cabinet has agreed to put Iraq under the mandate of the American occupation forces. It is a deeply regrettable and sorrowful thing," Ahmed al-Masoudy, spokesman for Sadr's bloc in parliament, told Reuters. "We are calling upon the Iraqi people to stage demonstrations and sit-ins to stop this farce." Iran, which has influence among Iraqi Shi'ites, has also opposed the pact. Tehran did not immediately comment, but an analyst on Iranian state television signalled Tehran might ease its stance, calling the draft a victory for Maliki's government which had obtained concessions from Washington.
(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed, Aws Qusay, Aseel Kami and Tim Cocks in Baghdad, Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Parisa Hafezi in Tehran; writing by Peter Graff)
-----------
Iraq's lead negotiator Muwafaq al-Rubaie told AFP on Friday he believed the draft agreement was a "very good text" and expected it to be approved by parliament as well.[/color]
---
But on Friday Sadr announced the creation of a new militia -- the Brigades of the Promised Day -- to fight the Americans.
"We were surprised and shocked by this approval, which expresses devotion to the occupation by agreeing to the mandate the occupier wanted," Hazem al-Araji, a senior Sadrist leader told AFP.
"This approval underestimates the blood of the martyrs, the opinion of the clerics, and the popular rejection of this agreement," he said, adding that the movement would hold a protest in Baghdad on Friday.
---------
two senior US officials involved in the protracted negotiations leading up to the deal insisted on Monday that mostly Shiite Iran had done everything it could to pressure Iraqi leaders into refusing the agreement.
"There has been absolutely no softening in the position of the government of Iran. They are dead-set against the success of this agreement," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.
"They have, to our knowledge and the knowledge of every Iraqi official involved in this, maintained unrelenting pressure."
Despite the vast improvement in security in Iraq over the past year US officials insist Iran is still funding, arming and training proxy militias in the country, charges denied by Tehran.
"Iran strategically wants to be the dominant actor in this country in every sphere, economics, political, security," another senior US official in Baghdad said. "They have pulled out every stop to block this agreement."
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh , however, said he felt the Iranians had "become less offensive on this agreement" because of Iraqi assurances that its territory would not be used for attacks on its neighbours.
"I think that (the Iranians) are looking to have a better policy with the US. We are encouraging even the US to review their policy toward Iran," Dabbagh told AFP at his residence in Baghdad's heavily-guarded Green Zone on Monday.
"We are the big loser in the conflict between the United States and Iran. At the end Iraq is a battlefield," he added.
In a televised address later on Tuesday Maliki sought to reassure both Iran and Syria, who have said the pact legitimises the US occupation.
"There will be no permanent (US) bases in Iraq and our country will not be used as a corridor or as a base to attack another state," Maliki said.
Tehran has yet to officially respond to the Iraqi cabinet's approval, but in the Islamic republic reactions were mixed.
Iraqi parliament debate on pact ends in scuffles
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press Writer – Wed Nov 19, 5:42 pm ET
An Iraqi man kisses a poster depicting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki AP – An Iraqi man kisses a poster depicting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during a demonstration in …
BAGHDAD – A heated parliamentary debate on the U.S.-Iraq security treaty was called to an early close Wednesday as lawmakers loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr scuffled with security guards for the foreign minister and the speaker of the legislature and his two deputies.
The session was chaotic from the start, with lawmakers shouting at each other. Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani added to the din by repeatedly yelling at legislators to sit down or keep quiet, but failed to restore order.
The turmoil followed the announcement by two small political factions that they would join al-Sadr's supporters in opposing the security pact, which would allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three more years.
The deal is backed by the governing coalition, which holds a majority in parliament, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is campaigning for help from other blocs in hopes of passing the measure with broader support in a vote by legislators Monday.
The Shiite Fadhila party, which has 15 seats in parliament, said it would vote against the agreement. Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of a small Sunni Arab bloc with 11 seats, said a U.N. mandate under which U.S. forces are in Iraq should be renewed for six months when it expires Dec. 31 so the government could negotiate a new pact.
Sadrist legislators tried to shout down a lawmaker from the ruling Shiite coalition who was reading the treaty's text to the chamber.
When the lawmaker, Hassan al-Sineid, kept reading, Sadrist lawmaker Ahmed al-Massoudi aggressively approached the bench. He appeared to be on the verge of grabbing the document from al-Sineid, seated next to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, when security guards intervened.
Scuffling erupted and then escalated when other Sadrist legislators rushed to help their colleague, prompting the speaker to hurriedly declare the session adjourned until Thursday.
The Sadrists later claimed that al-Massoudi was punched in the face by one of Zebari's guards.
The pact already was approved by al-Maliki's Cabinet, boosting its chances for passage when parliament votes, because the main parties in the governing coalition dominate the body.
But the vocal opposition points to a possibly narrow victory for the government in the vote, which would cast a shadow on the legitimacy of a deal that al-Maliki has said should be approved with a broad consensus. Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said the deal would be acceptable only if approved by a wide margin in parliament.
If the measure passes the legislature, it will go to the president and his two deputies for ratification. Each one — President Jalal Talabani and vice presidents Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Tariq al-Hashemi — has the power to veto the agreement.
Shiite coalition parties, which have 85 seats, and the Kurdish bloc, with 54, firmly support the pact, and their votes alone amount to a thin majority. They might also pick up support from smaller parties. However, the position of their Sunni Arab allies, the three-party Iraqi Accordance Front, is less certain and many of those 44 lawmakers might not back the deal.
Lawmakers from Fadhila and al-Mutlaq's group, along with 30 or so seats from al-Sadr's group, amount to 56 dissenting votes.
Some Sunni leaders say the agreement should be put to a vote in a national referendum. Others fault the document for not offering a power-sharing formula that would ensure the full participation of the once-dominant Sunni minority in governing the country.
A modest show of popular support for the agreement was on display Wednesday, when several hundred people staged demonstrations in support of the pact in the mainly Shiite southern cities of Basra, Karbala and Najaf.
Under the agreement, which reflects an improving security climate, U.S. troops would withdraw from Iraqi cities by the end of next June and from the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. It would give the Iraqis almost complete control over their operations and movements but limited judicial jurisdiction in the case of serious crimes committed by U.S. soldiers when off-base and off-duty.
The agreement also would bar the Americans from using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring nations.
The United States defended the agreement Wednesday, with Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell saying the document provided the time and authority needed for American troops to train Iraqi forces and go after terrorists.
Morrell spoke as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed to Capitol Hill to explain and defend the agreement to Congress.
In a nationally televised address Tuesday, al-Maliki also defended the treaty, saying it was a prelude to the restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty by 2012. He said the alternative would be renewing the U.N. mandate, whose terms he said compromise Iraq's sovereignty, or leaving Iraq's nascent security forces to fight alone after that mandate expires Dec. 31.
Sadrist lawmakers appeared to hope to derail the pact by trying to tangle up parliament and preventing a vote as the session nears its end for the year.
The assembly is scheduled to recess late this month or early December for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha. Dozens of lawmakers will then travel to Saudi Arabia for Muslims' annual pilgrimage to Mecca, denying parliament a quorum to debate or vote on the pact.
Al-Sadr has a long history of conflict with the United States, launching several uprisings against U.S. forces since they occupied Iraq in 2003. He threatened this month to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they don't immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.
He called for a mass prayer Friday at a central Baghdad square to protest the agreement.
----
Pushing and shoving broke out after parliament members loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr moved to require two-thirds of the 275-member body to sign off on the deal before it becomes law. Currently, passage of the pact requires only a 51% majority.
Security guards for Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari moved to block a Sadr lawmaker, who approached United Iraqi Alliance lawmaker Hassan al-Sineid. That was after parliament Speaker Mahmoud Mashadani refused the Sadr-block motion to increase the number of lawmakers needed to approve the pact, according to four lawmakers in the session. Reporters weren't allowed in the chamber.
"We just want our voices heard and we are being shut down," said Sadr lawmaker Falah Hassan Shanshal. On Monday when parliament first took up the security agreement, the 30-member Sadr bloc disrupted the proceedings by shouting protests in the middle of the session.
___
Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.
------
Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani, seen here in 2004, has lashed out at lawmakers who had left on a pilgrimage instead of voting on a divisive US military pact. Iraq's highest Shiite religious authority made his remarks just hours before MPs hold a second reading of the wide-ranging accord.
(AFP/File/Ho)
al-Sistani, seen here in 2004, has lashed out at lawmakers who had left …
* Around the World Play Video Video: Around the World FOX News
* Musicians live dangerously in Baghdad Play Video Video: Musicians live dangerously in Baghdad AFP
NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) – Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq's highest Shiite religious authority, on Thursday lashed out at lawmakers who had left on a pilgrimage instead of voting on a divisive US military pact.
"Sistani is very angry at the parliamentarians who went on the Haj and ignored the call of the Guide to assume their national and historical responsibility to give their opinion frankly about the agreement," an official from Sistani's office told AFP.
His remarks came hours before parliament was to hold a second reading of the wide-ranging accord, which would allow US troops to remain in Iraq for three years after their current UN mandate expires December 31.
The agreement was approved by Iraq's cabinet on Sunday with the support of all the major blocs representing Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, but has drawn fire from Shiite hardliners loyal to the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The reclusive Sistani -- who usually communicates through close advisers and other associates -- has said he opposes any agreement that infringes on Iraq's "sovereignty" but that the government should make the final decision.
The official in his office said the lawmakers who had left for the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca had "run away from their responsibilities and scoffed at the millions of voters who have elected them."
"It's even more of a pity because some of them are members of the United Iraqi Alliance who claim to work according to the instructions of the Guide (Sistani)," he added, referring to the largest political bloc in parliament.
"They say they are committed to his instructions but they are not obeying the words of the Guide which are in the interests of the country."
Parliament was to hold a second reading of the pact after deputies loyal to Sadr shouted down the deal Wednesday, forcing a postponement.
Sadr's movement has also vowed to hold a mass demonstration on Friday protesting any agreement with the US "occupier."
--
BAGHDAD – Iraqi lawmakers have finished a second reading of the Iraq-U.S. security pact as the parliament was engulfed in protests from opposition lawmakers for a second straight day.
The reading is part of the legislative process leading up to a vote on the pact scheduled for November 24.
Lawmakers loyal to Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr sought to disrupt Thursday's reading, as they did the previous day.
They pounded on desks and shouted in an attempt to drown out the voice of the lawmaker reading the draft aloud. Shouting matches ensued, with Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani barely able to control the chaos in the 275-seat chamber.
The pact allows U.S. forces to stay in Iraq for three years after the Dec. 31 expiry of a U.N. mandate.
----
Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq
By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Although the Pentagon officially has welcomed the new accord on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, senior military officials are privately criticizing President Bush for giving Iraq more control over U.S. military operations for the next three years than the U.S. had ever contemplated.
Officials said U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq. They said President Bush gave in to Iraqi demands to avoid leaving the decisions to his successor, Barack Obama.
At times, "President Bush wanted this deal more than the Iraqis did," said a senior administration official who closely monitored the negotiations.
This official, and others, all who spoke anonymously to be candid, offered a first glimpse into the dynamics of the secret negotiations, which gave Iraq almost unprecedented control over U.S. troops in the period between Jan. 1 and a final U.S. withdrawal from Iraq on Dec. 31, 2011.
As part of the accord, which U.S. and Iraqi officials signed in Baghdad on Monday, Iraq will have potential authority over U.S. military operations, intelligence-gathering, cargo shipments and even the mail sent to American troops. Foreign contractors are subject to Iraqi law. On Jan. 1, Iraq will assume control of the U.S.-fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, and of the nation's airspace.
The officials said the biggest factor in the outcome was the Iraq government's decision to re-schedule provincial elections from October until the end of January, which gave its negotiators strong arguments to drive a hard bargain.
At the same time in Washington, political pressures generated by Obama's victory, first in the primaries and then in the general election, led Bush to meet the Iraqi demands.
The Bush administration had sought a conventional status of forces agreement that would provide a semi-permanent basis for stationing troops in Iraq, while Obama campaigned on promises to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of his inauguration. The Arabic language version calls the final agreement a withdrawal accord.
Publicly, the Defense Department defended the agreement on Wednesday, and top officials said they're comfortable with the final document, according to a senior Pentagon aide. "They wouldn't have signed off otherwise."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Capitol Hill Wednesday to explain the agreement, which still must be ratified by Iraq's parliament, though not by the U.S. Congress.
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he was comfortable with the terms of the agreement and that it adequately protects U.S. troops.
The White House defended what it called a "mutually agreed to agreement." Spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We asked for some things that we didn't get, they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."
Pentagon officials, however, said the White House made unprecedented concessions. In addition to allowing Iraq to search cargo and mail under some conditions, the deal bars U.S. forces from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi soil and permits Iraq to prosecute U.S. military contractors, and in some cases perhaps also American troops, under Iraqi law.
Both sides began working on the deal in the spring, months before the expiration of the United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. forces to operate in Iraq. At the time, the Iraqi government was feeling empowered by its military success against Shiite militias in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. But Washington adamantly opposed concessions to the Iraqis, said a senior military officer who closely monitored the negotiations.
The provincial elections, which will reshape Iraq's political map, were then scheduled for October. But around July, the Iraqi government postponed them until January, and Iraqi politicians realized they could not agree to anything less than a full withdrawal and still win the elections. As Iraqis began asking for more conditions, U.S. negotiators wouldn't relent, the officer said.
Some at the White House blamed an obstinate Pentagon. Pentagon officials said the White House didn't understand what was happening on the ground. "Baghdad looks very different from Washington," the officer told McClatchy. An administration official objected to that characterization, but said "we wasted four or five months."
Last month, both sides appeared to agree on a document. However, the Iraqis rejected the document again and demanded the right to search mail and cargo, control airspace and remove any conditions for a withdrawal.
As Obama's chances to be elected president improved, the White House felt it was under more pressure. Neither the administration nor the Iraqis wanted to extend the U.N. resolution. "It turned into a very peculiar political predicament," the officer said.
"There are a lot of safeguards and caveats on things that some are concerned about," said the senior Pentagon aide. "It sounds like a big giveaway but it's not."
The White House is expected to release an English translation of the agreement as early as Thursday.
--------
No comments:
Post a Comment