Sadrists Protest New US-Iraq Pullout Deal

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Sadrists Protest New US-Iraq Pullout Deal stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

KARIN LAUB | August 22, 2008 10:59 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

BAGHDAD — Several thousand supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr protested Friday against an emerging U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, saying it would turn Iraq into a U.S. colony.

The march in the southern city of Kufa came a day after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad to discuss the deal, which includes a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Under a draft agreement, American combat troops would pull out of major Iraqi cities by next June and leave Iraq by 2011, according to Iraqi officials familiar with the document.

The schedule could be modified if the two governments agree, and the pact has not been approved by either the Iraqi Cabinet or the parliament, which has the final decision.

Al-Sadr, who lives in Iran but retains significant political clout in Iraq, strongly opposes the U.S. military presence. Al-Sadr and other critics fear that the pullout deal will bind the U.S. and Iraq in a long-term security relationship, instead of restoring Iraqi sovereignty.

In Kufa, about 2,000 Sadrists marched after Friday noon prayers, chanting, "No to America," and raising pictures of al-Sadr. They held up banners reading "The dubious agreement means a permanent colonization of Iraq" and "Iraq is not a U.S. colony."

An aide to al-Sadr, Sheik Dia al-Shawki, told the worshippers that the emerging deal goes against the will of the Iraqi people.

In Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite slum and al-Sadr's stronghold in Baghdad, preacher Sayyid al-Battat criticized what he said was an ambiguous agreement "that the Iraqi people know nothing about."

Story continues below
advertisement

A key point of contention has been the issue of jurisdiction over Americans in Iraq, as the Iraqi forces assume greater responsibility.

The draft agreement says that private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but American negotiators held firm on U.S. troops remaining under U.S. jurisdiction.

Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Hamoud Bidan provided more details Friday, telling CNN that jurisdiction would be determined by a joint legal committee in cases of U.S. citizens who commit major crimes against Iraqi civilians.

The deputy minister also reiterated that June 30 is the deadline for a troop withdrawal from Iraqi cities.

In other developments Friday, Iraqi forces carried out an arrest raid in Sadr City. The forces moved in as worshippers headed to a local mosque for dawn prayers, said Ali al-Moussawi, a spokesman for al-Sadr's office in the area. Soldiers shot and killed one of al-Sadr's guards when he tried to escape arrest, al-Moussawi said. Another guard was arrested, he said.

Army officials had no immediate comment.

The Iraqi army won control of Sadr City in May, after weeks of battles with al-Sadr's now largely disbanded militia.

Also Friday, a court spokesman said an Iraqi court imposed the death sentence in absentia on a former Sunni culture minister for his role in an attack on a Sunni politician that killed his two sons.

The Baghdad criminal court imposed the sentence Wednesday on Asad Kamal al-Hashimi after convicting him of the Feb. 5, 2005, attack, according to a spokesman for the Iraqi Higher Judicial Council, Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar.

Al-Hashimi has been a fugitive since he was accused of planning the ambush against secular Sunni politician Mithal al-Alusi. Al-Alusi was wounded and his sons were killed in the western Baghdad attack.

Al-Hashimi has one month to file an appeal.

BAGHDAD — Several thousand supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr protested Friday against an emerging U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, saying it would turn Iraq into a U.S. col...
BAGHDAD — Several thousand supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr protested Friday against an emerging U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, saying it would turn Iraq into a U.S. col...
Filed by Barbara Fenig  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
71
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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 620 fans permalink
photo

" The draft agreement says that private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but American negotiators held firm on U.S. troops remaining under U.S. jurisdicti­on."

Does anyone else feel like puking ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 08/22/2008
- robotfog I'm a Fan of robotfog 23 fans permalink
photo

yes. Thank you for asking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 08/22/2008
- Podewumun I'm a Fan of Podewumun 32 fans permalink

I'm sure that'll be just fine with Al Sadr. NOT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 08/22/2008
photo

well can you imagine an iraqi giving commands to an American soldier? too friggin' funny. can you say scraping the bottom of the barrel for justification to stay where we're' not wanted?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 08/22/2008

How many times did Bushco tell us you couldnt have a date for withdrawal of troops. I guess that must be the date we are gonna win the war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 08/22/2008

According to McCain, by agreeing to a timetable rather than conditions on the ground is considered bad for the troops who have sacrificed so much (ie the SURGE) and political expendiency right? ( Barack Obama would rather loose a war to win an election). So, what does this agreement signed by Condelessa Rice say about the Bush Administration then?... they would rather "SAVE FACE" by agreeing with this withdrawl than win the war?...... Please Obama campaign, hammer the McCain campaign over the head with this till the white meat shows!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 08/22/2008
- MrTessier I'm a Fan of MrTessier 3 fans permalink

I'd like to see how to hit him with this. I'd leave the Bush administration out of it. It will only reinforce his maverick brand if you bring up the white house. Better to ask if he's changed his opinion that setting a timetable is giving into the enemy, or that Iraq's government has the right to decide when we leave.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 08/22/2008

Neither Bush or McCain was against a draw down...tha­t was the plan all along...wh­at they were against was picking a premature and artificial date for withdrawal, in total disregard for conditions on the ground. In other words, you win the war first, then withdraw.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 08/22/2008
- Podewumun I'm a Fan of Podewumun 32 fans permalink

Would somebody PLEASE define WINNING?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 08/22/2008
- Nyland8 I'm a Fan of Nyland8 90 fans permalink
photo

No date after more than 5-1/2 years of abject failure can be "premature". Perhaps leaving during the first 9 or 10 months of occupation might have been "premature" - but not since then. Since then, every possible exit date has been far too late. Too late for the countless maimed, burned, blinded, crippled and killed - both American and Iraqi. Too late for the bulk of American citizens who've wanted this occupation to end for a long time. Too late to recover our lost fortunes, sure to top 2 trillion dollars. And far too late to win back the hearts and minds we lost by staying there through 5 years of privation and loss that will NEVER be forgotten by the Iraqis.

And there's nothing "artificial" about a date. A date is a date, and if it's agreed upon and fulfilled, then it is real ... not "artificial".

The conditions on the ground can NEVER dictate policy to America's president. If those "conditions" are unknown and unstated, as is the case with this administration, then Bush can always say that "conditions haven't been met". If the conditions are announced up front and known by all, then insurgents and foreign factions can simply lay low and act as if "conditions" were met, and reengage when we leave. Or worse, agent provocateurs can make sure conditions are never met - giving us war without end.

Withdrawal should start immediately and proceed until not one American serviceman remains in Iraq.

8

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 08/22/2008
- scooperss I'm a Fan of scooperss 69 fans permalink
photo

so bush and mccain KNOW the *war* will end "Under a draft agreement, American combat troops would pull out of major Iraqi cities by next June and leave Iraq by 2011 ".

Who knew they were omniscient!? Wowies

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 08/22/2008
- gevan I'm a Fan of gevan 18 fans permalink

Wasn't that the whole point (Bushwise)?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 08/22/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect