Proposed US-Iraq Security Agreement Rejected By Iraqi Lawmakers

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | June 12, 2008 04:14 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

A young boy looks through a bullet hole of the window of a school in the Shiite enclave of Sadr city, Baghdad, Iraq, on Thursday, June 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

BAGHDAD — New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two lawmakers said Thursday, and a senior government official expressed doubt an agreement could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November.

Iraqi reinforcements, meanwhile, arrived in the oil-producing southern city of Amarah on Thursday as the military geared up for another crackdown against Shiite militia fighters, officials said.

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration.

U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said the latest American version "wasn't satisfactory to say the least."

She said the American proposals contained "some good points but they were not up to what we had expected." Al-Asadi said the committee had recommended to the negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began last March.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed al-Asadi's comments, adding that "we will not sign" the agreement as proposed by Washington.

U.S. officials have refused to release details of the talks while they are still under way but have expressed their respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

The top State Department adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, told reporters this week that the two sides would meet a July target date to finish the agreement, which must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

President Bush told reporters this week in Germany that he was also confident that a deal would be reached.

But a senior Iraqi official told The Associated Press that the chance of finalizing an agreement before the U.S. presidential election was "slim," although he added that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government was interested in a deal if it served Iraqi interests.

The official is familiar with the negotiations but spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his position.

He said Iraqis were disappointed that the Americans were not offering a firm commitment to defend the country from foreign invasion _ a move that would require U.S. Senate ratification.

The Bush administration has said it does not need congressional approval for the agreement despite demands from Democrats that Congress have a role if the pact commits U.S. forces to remain in Iraq long-term.

Several Iraqi lawmakers said a major obstacle was the U.S. demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel, including both troops and civilian contractors.

Al-Asadi said the latest U.S. proposals limited immunity to American military personnel but that was not enough.

"What happens to our dignity? What happens to our sovereignty? We want immunity to be lifted," she said.

She also said the Americans had softened their demand for control of a considerable part of Iraq's airspace but that the Iraqis insisted on full control.

"If the U.S. controls the air, the ground and the sea, this means no sovereignty," she said.

Al-Asadi refused to release further details or talk about how many bases the United States wanted access to under the agreement. She said the Americans were now avoiding talk of numbers of bases but were asking for an "American presence" until Iraqi security forces were deemed ready to take over from U.S.-led forces.

She said the agreement included no timetable for drawing down American forces and "this is a scandal."

Meanwhile, al-Maliki met Thursday with Jordan's King Abdullah II during a one-day visit to Amman. The two leaders discussed resuming oil exports to Jordan and ways to prevent Islamic militants from joining the insurgency in Iraq.

Sunni Muslim Jordan has been critical of al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government, which Arabs accuse of leaning toward Iran. Jordan believes that hard-line Tehran leaders want to spread Shiite influence across the largely Sunni Arab world. Al-Maliki visited Iran last weekend.

The arrival of Iraqi reinforcements in the southern city of Amarah came after many militia chiefs fled there and to Iran to escape a security crackdown this past March in Basra, 100 miles to the south, according to U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Quick reaction force troops from the Iraqi army's U.S.-trained 1st Division that had been sent to Basra arrived Thursday in Amarah, said Marine Lt. Col. Chris Charleville, deputy team leader with the unit's military transition team. He said they were awaiting orders from the Ministry of Defense.

A local security official in Amarah said new checkpoints also have been built on the roads south to Basra, north to Baghdad and east to a border crossing with Iran in preparation for an offensive. Amarah and surrounding Maysan province are believed to be the center of weapons smuggling from Iran to Shiite extremists in Iraq.

The security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information, said only lower-level militiamen were left in Amarah.

___

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub and Kim Gamel in Baghdad and Jamal Halaby in Amman contributed to this report.

 
Comments
182
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)

The ultimate irony the Iraqis kick the Americans out at the end of the year. Problem solved.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 06/14/2008

give us your oil now

better to kill them over there than over here

we deserve that oil we lost 4000 soldiers

we have bases all over the world why not iraq for 100 years

the surge is working give it time

we are training the iraqi security forces 6 1/2 years is not enough time ie slow learners

we are americans we deserve to be there in fact anywhere we want

the iraqis are muslims and those responsible for 9/11 were muslims

any muslim will do as long as we can get our revenage for 9/11

this will teach those muslims not to mess with a super power like america

we kick ass and bring them on

signed
just your average mc bush supporter

http://hnn.us/HowStupidAreWe/definitions.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 AM on 06/14/2008

The fall guy in this failed deal will be Iran. Check out the lead up to this fiasco...and the blame game to set up another war before Bush leaves ....

Operation Iraqi Takeover!
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/20-regs-thoughts/2211-operation-iraqi-takeover-hits-a-dead-end-for-now

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 06/13/2008


Watch this utube 5 minute video, then ask yourself if you want these scum-bags in your country


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20077.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 06/13/2008

I certainly can't blame the Iraqis for turning down what Bush proposed. It's interesting to speculate just how close it came to being approved. One wonders, did Bush rationally evaluate the chance it would succeed and conclude that the expected rewards of a success really outweighed the expected propaganda beating of a failure?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 06/13/2008

The media has intentionally lied to us all along -- lying to get us into the war by broadcasting intelligence they knew was cherry picked and manufactured about the threat Iraq posed to us. When the invasion went to crap the media intentionally broadcast that although we shouldn't have gone in, a calamity of biblical proportions would occur if we leave immediately and safely. Then they declared the surge a success, even though Ahmadinejad gets a hero's welcome in Baghdad a year after the surge started while US officials have to sneak into the Green Zone with heavily armed troops and contractors protecting them. They also simply stopped providing coverage, ignoring the US still has between 5 and ten Americans killed in Iraq every week.

And they NEVER ask McCain about the costs of the war (hundreds of billions per year) he says can continue so long as casualties are down. The cost of the war is killing the economy and the Iraq War has led to oil prices that are crippling normal Americans. $4 per gallon oil prices (with no end in sight for the increases) mean the surge has failed and we have lost the war.

The media let McCain get away with the lie that the surge worked -- despite hundreds of billions per year, between 5 and ten dead Americans per week, $4 per gallon gas prices and our hand-picked Iraqi government wanting us out of there while giving Ahdinejad a hero's welcome..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

SIGNATORIES9 TO REBUILDING AMERICA"S DEFENSES

Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University
Stephen Cambone10, National Defense University, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney, Cross Donors' Forum for International Affairs Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute
David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment
David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan, Yale University
Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan,11 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Washington Post writer
Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation I.
Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Assistant to the President
Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College,
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Steve Rosen, Harvard University, ex-Director of Foreign Policy Issues, awaiting trial
Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, board of directors, U.S. Committee on NATO, author
Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Barry Watts, former director of Northrop Grumman Corporation, author of The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment
Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, now World Bank President
Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation, left DoD 2004

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

The PNAC has taken down it's web site . These are the people you can thank for alot of the mess we are in .. see the above post

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 06/13/2008

I will reiterate......we will get about 3 MOB's with 15 FOB's. We will have to coordinate with the Iraqi Government for preplanned operations, but will be able to defend ourselves without permission. American Forces will NOT be subject to IRAQI law without considering the crime and IRAQI punishment first. Our soldiers deserve U.S. Constitutional protections while serving their country. As with countries like Japan and Germany. It is a NEGOTIATING process. We will NOT get everything we WANT, but we'll get everything we NEED. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

What about the animal mercenaries? Will they still get to kill "just because" without obeying Iraqi law?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 06/13/2008

We are considerably benelovent compared to the scum who cuts off a person's head on live TV. Looks like a choice between bad and worse, for them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 06/13/2008

I think that given a choice, I would rather having my head cut off than being tortured for 5 years and still not know when my head will be cut off.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

It's still their world and we, only intruders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

I'm shocked ! I mean , geesh , didnt Cheney tell us that we would be greeted as liberators ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

Wounder what going to happen when they tell us to leave the country Bush and McCain are going to be a little embarrassed both of these idiots have forgotten what were in Iraq for. It sure was not for the benefit of the United States nor the Iraqi people. About the only ones who benefited from this war was Haburtion, Blackwater, KBR and several others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 06/13/2008

You'd think we'd stop paying our IRAQI Lackeys after this............showing an actual INDEPENDENT streak and flexing their governmental muscles..........no progress, eh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/13/2008

I would like to congratulate the Iraqi lawmakers who rejected the agreement that is not sanctioned by the American people. To accept and sign such agreement would be bad for their sovereignty.

They know that the Bush regime is trying to get them to sign a piece of paper that will enable the US to control their country for a very long time, maybe 100 years.

You have shown that after 5 years of US occupation, you believe that you can take care of your country and bring people together to make it a safer place without the use of force, foreign force.

By talking to your neighbors you can ensure that those governments will help you in building your nation again and not attack you as in the pass. I truly believe that Iran will be a friend to Iraq in the future and not enemies because there are no external forces like the US or Russia instigating a fight.

You and Iran have been used by the world's super powers to test test their own strength. Now is your time to show them that you don't want to play on their terms.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 06/13/2008

Like "Iraqi lawmakers" have anything to say about it! What a charade!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 06/13/2008

The lawmakers making the decision are the ones in Tehran. You know, those OTHER Axis if Evil folks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 06/13/2008

The truth finally emerges in this disgraceful "security" agreement. The Bushites have every intention of occupying Iraq for the very long term, and refuse to be held accountable for anything that the American military or American mercenaries might do. How could any proud, independent nation say yes to that? And why should American taxpayers (actually, the Chinese government), continue to spend billions each month in another country while our own nation's roads and bridges are buckling, and millions live without health insurance or a livable wage? This is disgusting, and illustrates clearly the nature of the neo-con threat to both the US and the world. These people still want the empire. Despite the brutally hard lessons of the past 5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, they still harbor delusions of American hegemony in the world. November cannot come soon enough. These people, these fascist idealogues, need to be purged from our government like the cancer that they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 06/13/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect