More

Iraq's Cabinet to vote on security pact with US

HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | November 15, 2008 11:02 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Smoke rises over the Karrada area of central Baghdad, Iraq after a car bomb attack on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet will vote Sunday on a security pact with Washington that would keep U.S. forces in the country for another three years, a major step in efforts to balance Iraqi demands for national sovereignty with the security concerns of the two allies.

The accord goes before the Cabinet, with the most powerful cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, signaling that he would not object to it.

A senior official at al-Sistani's office said the cleric told two legislators that the document represented "the best available option" for Iraq, signaling that he would not oppose it if the Cabinet and later parliament approve it.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said al-Sistani indicated to Khalid al-Attiyah and Ali al-Adeeb that he wanted the agreement to pass by a comfortable majority in the 275-seat parliament.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Saturday dispatched the two senior lawmakers to see al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, in a bid to secure support for the agreement.

Al-Sistani commands enormous influence with Iraq's majority Shiites. The Iranian-born cleric does not speak to reporters, communicating his views through edicts or leaks from his office. His public silence on a major policy decision is often taken to mean he has no objections.

Al-Attiyah said al-Sistani had stressed the need for "national accord" over the agreement. Al-Adeeb said "His eminence, al-Sistani, is comforted by the thoroughness of Iraqi officials who shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding national interests."

The U.N. mandate covering the presence of U.S. and other foreign forces in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and failure to pass the agreement would leave Iraq with little choice but to seek a renewal of the mandate.

A series of bombings Saturday pointed to the fragility of security gains in the past year. The violence also was likely to strengthen the argument of the pact's proponents, including the interior and defense ministers, that there is still a need for U.S. forces.

In Tal Afar, a suicide car bombing struck a commercial district, killing nine Iraqis and wounding 40, according to the U.S. military. Iraqi police and hospital officials said seven people were killed and up to 32 were wounded. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.

In Baghdad, a bomb in a parked car exploded near the National Theater in the mainly Shiite district of Karradah, killing at least five and wounding 23, according to police and hospital officials. Some victims were heading to the theater to see a political satire, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. military, however, said initial reports indicated no deaths but 19 civilians wounded in the Baghdad bombing. It also said a suicide bomber in a vehicle in the northern city of Mosul injured 13 Iraqis on Saturday, and that a U.S. Marine died from wounds suffered in a roadside bombing west of Baghdad on Friday.

Also Saturday, two American soldiers died when a helicopter made a "hard landing" after hitting wires in Mosul, the U.S. military said. It said the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter went down because of an accident and that there was no enemy fire in the area.

Mosul is a flashpoint of insurgent activity that has defied stepped up efforts by U.S. and Iraqi forces to bring stability. The attacks Saturday raise questions about the preparedness of Iraqi forces and back assertions by proponents of the security pact that they still need American help.

A close aide to al-Maliki and two Cabinet ministers said Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have agreed on a final draft of the security pact and that it would be put to a vote in an emergency Cabinet meeting Sunday.

The aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the pact stood "a good chance" of being passed by a two-thirds majority in the 37-member Cabinet and that the final draft was reached after "intense" contacts between the American and Iraqi sides.

In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe described the final document as beneficial to the allied nations.

"We think this is a good document that serves both Iraqis and Americans well," he said. "We remain hopeful that the Iraqi government will conclude this process soon."

Al-Attiyah, one of the Shiite lawmakers who met al-Sistani, told reporters in Najaf that the Americans have agreed to two changes proposed by al-Maliki. One of the two, he said, removed a phrase that could delay the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraqi cities and back to bases in outlying areas by the end of June.

He did not mention the second change. Iraq has demanded guarantees for its right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors for serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base and to ensure that the United States does not use Iraqi territory to attack a neighboring country, such as Iran or Syria.

It also wanted stronger language to clarify that U.S. troops cannot stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, 2011.

If the Cabinet passes the draft agreement Sunday, the 275-seat parliament could follow suit because the political blocs in al-Maliki's government dominate the legislature. The agreement needs a simple majority to pass in parliament.

The final step would be ratification of the deal by President Jalal Talabani and his two vice presidents.

Most political parties have been reluctant to state their position on the pact, fearing a voter backlash in key provincial and general elections in 2009 and the stigma of being seen as condoning the presence in Iraq of U.S. forces who are viewed as an occupation army.

Some, including al-Maliki's senior partner in the government, looked to al-Sistani for political cover, saying they would only sign off on the agreement if the cleric backed it. Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militiamen fought U.S. forces in three uprisings since 2003, has threatened to renew attacks on the Americans if they don't immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.

The only major group that supported the pact from the start was the Kurdish bloc, America's most reliable ally in Iraq. The Kurds look to Washington as the guarantor of their self-ruling enclave in northern Iraq.

BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet will vote Sunday on a security pact with Washington that would keep U.S. forces in the country for another three years, a major step in efforts to balance Iraqi demands ...
BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet will vote Sunday on a security pact with Washington that would keep U.S. forces in the country for another three years, a major step in efforts to balance Iraqi demands ...
Filed by Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:18 AM on 11/16/2008
Iraqis Believe Americans Bombing Them to Push Status of Forces Agreement

Some people are saying that the Americans are making the bombings to make Iraqis believe that it is very important for them to stay in Iraq, that they are still needed. The Americans say that when they
withdraw from Iraq violence will increase. Is that a threat? You can read it as a threat, or you can read it as an expectation. Some Iraqis take it as a threat.

Some people are asking: "Are the Americans punishing us with bombings because Iraq has refused to sign the SOFA?" [Status of Forces Agreement]
11:07 PM on 11/15/2008
Iraq should never sign any deal with US criminaI foreign occupiers. So the US Army must return home by years end.
06:16 AM on 11/16/2008
Agreed
photo
peterg76
Freelance medical transcriptionist
09:21 PM on 11/15/2008
Occupation by the US: JUST SAY NO!
06:17 AM on 11/16/2008
the true evil invaders and evil doers are the Useless States.
08:18 PM on 11/15/2008
Odd, how the puppet government is suddenly ready to sign a deal locking US forces into a long term presence just around the time all this unacountable "bailout" cash is floating around.
07:39 PM on 11/15/2008
Bush is trying to paint Obama into a corner, he is determined that the US stay there as long as it takes to complete his warped neo-con vision. The economic down turn is going to determine when we leave, not Bush or his puppet Iraqi government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
10:45 PM on 11/15/2008
Obama will determine when we leave, regardless of any deal that may be cut between Bush and the Iraqi government.
06:41 PM on 11/15/2008
Maliki, " It's an offer we can't refuse. Petraeus said, no more moolah. Now that's straight from the Godfather himself. Look what happened to Fredo. Eh? Come on, sign here."
06:26 PM on 11/15/2008
The Iraq Cabinet will sign since pallets of Bush Dollars are fading into the sunset.
02:59 PM on 11/15/2008
If he attacks, he would only bring his own end.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
02:39 PM on 11/15/2008
Thank you already President-Elect Obama the end of the war is in sight. No doubt Maliki did not trust McCain to end the war so that's why he waited for the election.
01:05 PM on 11/15/2008
Two months to go. Not soon enough. Bush and his buddies are racing against the clock. No to Gates.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
11:03 AM on 11/15/2008
From Rassmussen:
******
War on Terror Update
Confidence in War Hits New High, But Voters Less Sure When Troops Coming Home

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Voter confidence in the War on Terror has reached its highest level ever, with 60% now saying the United States and its allies are winning, according to the first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on the issue since Election Day.

But voters are not quite as confident as they were before the election that President-elect Barack Obama will bring the troops home from Iraq within his first term. Now 62% think it is likely troops will come home in the next four years, compared to 75% in the last two surveys conducted in October. Even Democrats are slightly less confident, with 78% who say Obama will bring the troops home within his first term, compared to 85% in October.

Just 15% of voters say the terrorists are winning the War on Terror, which is the lowest level seen in tracking history dating back to April 2004. Another 18% say neither side is winning. ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror/war_on_terror_update
11:02 AM on 11/15/2008
As usual, news only reports on comments by the people involved. It doesn't provide any specifics like what is in the US security pact draft. The most important information for the story (the details) will require the reader to delve into another internet article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nomccain
10:55 AM on 11/15/2008
Al Queda has done what they set out to do after destroying the world trade centers, which is to wreck the U.S. Economy. No nation, not even us, can continue to borrow billions of dollars from other nations to finance a war that was misguided in the first place and survive economically. When you combine this with unfair trade agreements, allowing U.S. Corporations to locate in third world countries just for profits, and letting crooks and incompetents on wall street operate uncontrolled, you get the picture of where we are now.. I anticipate another attack on the U.S. before or shortly after Obama is sworn in just to GET US TO CONTINUE THE WARS. They know that this will eventually weaken us economically and militarily and make us an easy target to destroy from within. How stupid can politicians get? Pray that Obama will go where Al Queda is and leave other areas to their own determination a nd concentrate on our own nation's problems.
11:20 AM on 11/15/2008
Good observation.
The good about Bush's tenure is Al-Q hasn't attacked any embassies and home fronts....people have to give him credit for that....at the same time, it's damn near bankrupted the country.
06:27 PM on 11/15/2008
Your right, Bush moved the U.S. targets much closer.
11:31 AM on 11/15/2008
Bin Laden 1, Bush 0. THAT is the Worst President Ever's lasting legacy. Thanks alot, pal.
10:18 AM on 11/15/2008
The Puppets in the greenzone may agree on this So called security pact (when it is a kind of long term occupation and interference ) but the majority of the people said NO , and NO again to this forced security agreement . the US almost threatened if they did not sign it . if the People are allowed to vote on this issue , they wont accept it . Many iraqis in the green zone who disagree may be bribed to accept such a pact if the money is good enough .
10:17 AM on 11/15/2008
Wonder what the agreement is really about? How much more have we taken from that country?
If it has been nothing but oil, I hope these vultures drown in it. Wouldn't it be nice to see all the big oil companies stuck with all that oil after we all change to alternative energies? That would be the last laugh.