Iraq's government approves security pact with US

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

HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | November 16, 2008 10:45 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

U.S Army Spc Robert Cyncar from Mountain View, CA, of Lightning Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, stands outside a house yard during a routine patrol, in al Harmat neighborhood, northwestern Mosul, 360 kilometers (225 miles) northwest of Baghdad, Iraq, on Sunday, Nov. 16, 2008. Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.(AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet overwhelmingly approved a security pact with the United States on Sunday, ending prolonged negotiations to allow American forces to remain for three more years in the country they first occupied in 2003.

The deal detailing the conditions of the U.S. presence still needs parliamentary approval, and lawmakers could vote as soon as Nov. 24. For Iraqis, the breakthrough was bittersweet because they won concessions from the Americans but must accept the presence of U.S. troops until 2012.

"It's the best possible, available option," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. He was referring to the conflict between Iraq's desire for full sovereignty and control over security and its need for American support and cooperation to achieve that goal.

Al-Dabbagh described the pact _ intended to supplant the U.N. mandate expiring Dec. 31 _ as an "agreement on the withdrawal of U.S. troops," and Washington welcomed the Cabinet's approval.

"While the process is not yet complete, we remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council.

There is a good chance parliament will pass the agreement with a large majority, since the parties that make up Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government dominate the legislature.

The pact was due to be completed by the end of July, but negotiations stumbled over parts pertaining to Iraqi sovereignty and judicial oversight.

Al-Dabbagh said Iraq's government has received U.S. assurances that the President-elect Barack Obama would honor the agreement, and pointed out that each side has the right to repeal it after giving one year's notice. Obama, who takes office in January, has said he would pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of moving into the White House _ or May 2010.

Story continues below
advertisement

Iraq's neighbors and U.S. adversaries, Iran and Syria, oppose the pact, arguing that the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces offered the best option for Iraq.

The Iraqi government sought to allay their fears, amending the document to prohibit the Americans from using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring nations.

The Cabinet's decision was made amid violence, despite a dramatic improvement in security over the past year. Fresh attacks underlined doubts about whether Iraq's nascent security forces can stand without U.S. military support and training.

Hours after the Cabinet vote, seven people died and seven were wounded in a suicide car bombing at a police checkpoint in Diyala, a turbulent province northeast of Baghdad, according to police Col. Ahmed Khalifa, chief of Jalula police station.

The U.S. military said the attack in Jalula occurred at a police station and that four police and six civilians died. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy in the reports.

Earlier Sunday, a roadside bomb killed three people and wounded seven in northern Baghdad, Iraqi authorities said.

Al-Dabbagh said all but one of 28 Cabinet ministers present in Sunday's meeting, in addition to al-Maliki, voted for the pact. The sole vote of dissent came from Minister of Women's Affairs Nawal al-Samaraie, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni Arab party.

She said she voted against the pact because she preferred that it be put to a nationwide referendum. She also wanted the U.S. military to free Sunni security detainees not charged with specific crimes, rather than hand them to Iraqi authorities as provided by the agreement.

The Cabinet vote followed Washington's decision last week to grant a request by al-Maliki for final amendments.

Khalid al-Attiyah, parliament's deputy speaker, said the changes removed ambiguous language that could have allowed U.S. forces to ignore a timeline for their withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and from the country by Jan. 1, 2012. The changes also tightened Iraq's control over security raids and the arrest of Iraqis.

The agreement is believed to have met Iraqi concerns over its sovereignty and its security needs as it continues to grapple with a diminished but persistent insurgency. It gives Iraq the right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base.

Al-Attiyah said he expected parliament to vote on the agreement by Nov. 24. If parliament approves the deal, President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies must ratify it.

Iraq's parliament is due to go into recess at the end of the month or in early December because of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday, when many lawmakers travel to Saudi Arabia on the annual pilgrimage.

Parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani canceled all leave for lawmakers and suspended foreign and out-of-town visits to ensure a quorum for the security pact vote, al-Attiyah said.

"I'm optimistic that this agreement will be passed through the Council of Representatives (parliament)," spokesman al-Dabbagh told Associated Press Television News. But he added: "You cannot guarantee 100 percent approval of anything."

Barring unforeseen developments, the document should receive the support of the 85 lawmakers of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, the 54 Kurdish lawmakers and most of the 44 lawmakers in the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab bloc.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands the loyalty of 30 lawmakers, urged parliament in a statement Sunday to reject the agreement "without the least hesitation." The statement was read by a top al-Sadr aide on Iraq's al-Sharqiya Television.

Al-Sadr, whose militiamen battled U.S. forces in the past, has threatened to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they don't immediately withdraw from Iraq. He called for a mass prayer and protest in a central Baghdad square on Friday.

The Cabinet vote came a day after Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, indicated he would not object to the pact if it passes by a comfortable majority in parliament.

____

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub, Sinan Salaheddin and Saad Abdul-Kadir contributed to this report.

BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet overwhelmingly approved a security pact with the United States on Sunday, ending prolonged negotiations to allow American forces to remain for three more years in the co...
BAGHDAD — Iraq's Cabinet overwhelmingly approved a security pact with the United States on Sunday, ending prolonged negotiations to allow American forces to remain for three more years in the co...
 
Comments
114
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 Next › Last » (4 pages total)


Bush had push too much pressure on the irquis to sign this pact.
I hope the iraqui parliement does not approve this security pact or at least they should change the date and move it closer to what Obama proposed.

We should not sign any pact without the US congress in the first place and yet BooSh is doing it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

I totally agree with you. Congress should always be in the loop with regards to treaties. It doesn't matter what they call it, Congress should have a vote. However....it would give Obama an out. He could refer it to the AG and perhaps it would be designated unconstitutional.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 11/16/2008

Let's see 16 months Vs 36 months at 10 to 12 Billion Dollars a month.
What if we take the lowest munber: 10 billion

36months*$10b= $360 billion
16months*$10b= $160 billion
--------------------------------------------
20months*$10b= $200 billion savings

200 biilion is the cost we will save and additionaly lives of our young men and women.

With 200b we could do a lot of things here in the states.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 11/16/2008

As soon as BO becomes prez he should cancel this agreement and issue a new agreement calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2009 and not wait for 3 years to pass. This is what he promised us and he should keep this agreement with the people, us, who put him in office.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 11/16/2008


I agree. Nothing is writen in stone.
He should reserve it immediately.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 11/16/2008

This is Cheney/Bush's last grasp to force the new administration to follow their disastrous Iraq policy. President-elect Obama should make it clear on January 21,2009 we will evaluate US options and establish a new path out of Iraq.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 11/16/2008

But , but , think about the head bangers . For the love of God , please , think about the headbangers .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5163061.ece

LMAO

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 11/16/2008

I hope to God that President-elect gives the one year notice on January 21, 2009 and is able to repeal this agreement. I will be writing to the new administration and calling. I hope everyone else will too.
I hope that political organizations such as Moveon will start a campaign on this asap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

Iraq is bowing down once again. There should be no negotiations whatsoever. If Iraq says "Pack up and get!" the US and its allies should do just that WITHOUT this pre-conditions crap. The US administration should be held accountable to compensate Iraq and its people for the damage, death and unrest it has caused. And I agree with Iran and Syria, the US needs to go period!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 11/16/2008

You have to admit, "approves security pact with US" does sound much less humilitating than the equally accurate 'Iraq accepts the surrender terms of the defeated US invasion."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 11/16/2008

LUCKY US, WHAT A DEAL ? WHY ARE AMERICANS SOOOOO STUPID?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 11/16/2008

This agreement should be drafted as a 'temporary bridge" until Obama takes office.

Here is my sugesstion:

1. President Obama apologizes to the Iraqi people on behalf of the Untied States for the illegal invasion of their country. For the raping, pillaging and plundering of a nation that this invasion generated and for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost for oil and military company profits.

2. Bring home ALL military personel.

3. Take $1 billion a month (a 10th of what we are currently spending) to bring in a multinational neutral force of rebuilding personel to rebuild their infraestructure, schools, hospitals and cultural entities destroyed by the war.

4. Prosecute those that lied and committed treason by starting this insane war thus bringing the Iraquis and the Americans to their knees with the disintegration of our countries, the global economy and the hope of millions. This includes the Bush Junta, the Wall Street profiteers, the capitalists run amok with greed, the military complex and the oil companies that have absconded with billions of dollars on the backs of millions of innocent people.

We can start here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 PM on 11/16/2008

BAD...VERRRY BAD.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:43 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

I'm worried about what happens when we do leave. We walked into a hornet's nest, opened fie, and now we expect to walk away with no blow back, collateral damage, or whatever you want to call it? We have strengthened the Middle East, not weakened it. We have emboldened enemies who once would of never dared oppose us. I know many people in the Middle East love America and the good things we do. We cannot, however, expect them to be happy when we support the oppressive governments that rule them, just to make a handful of rich people a little bit richer.

The Iraqi parliament will not last a year after we leave. They do not solve their problems over there with debate and filibusters. Last minute votes or all night congressional sessions. No, they use A-Ks and bombs. The power vacuum that was created with Saddam's removal has yet to be filled. Perhaps it will be Al-Sadr, but it will definitely not be the Iraqi parliament. You cannot force change on people. Change has to come naturally or not at all. People on a whole will not accept a goverment they had no hand in creating. There were no elections. Only a PR event featuring green zone workers and what few citizens they could convince to leave their house that day. It wasn't a cross section of Iraq. That contingency left years ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

So... are the Iraqi people better off today because GW "Stayed The Course", or would they be doing a whole lot better right now if we left while the hostilities were raging?

Remember, many here on HuffPo wanted us to start withdrawing on a timeline while the hostilities were at their peak.

Remember, the Democratics did nothing to remove our troops, and did nothing to help them survive better in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

Smelly, it seems you're looking for a fight. It's over. You guys lost. Your days of accusing Democrats of being unpatriotic unless they supported your corrupt inane lies are over. And actually, it was the Dems that pushed through the new and improved GI bill and it was the Dems--Obama particularly--that legislated a moratorium on designating our beloved troops as having personality disorders; a way the corrupt Republican leadership could save money, by not providing medical for our soldiers coming home with PTSD.

If you want to play the REMEMBER game. We REMEMBER ALL RIGHT. We remember the lies and the cinched up flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" behind him when he sneered, "Bring it on!"

You're starting to sound like a sore loser Smelly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

"You guys lost". Who are "you guys"?

If anyone has lost anything, it should be people like Hillary Clinton, who called Petraeus a liar in front of the world. She did so for political purposes. It's evident now that Petraeus wasn't lying. Has she apologized for that yet?

My point is this: So many people wanted to quit this effort because they said that stability could NEVER come to Iraq while U.S. troops are there. They were obviously wrong. I think there should be a little embarrassment for those people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:16 PM on 11/16/2008
- RMB I'm a Fan of RMB permalink
photo

Let's rebuild Iraq's oil fields and get out. Let Iraqis sell their oil, rebuild their country, create jobs with the revenues. That's the best we can offer. It is the least we can do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 11/16/2008
photo

Lucky us, we get to stay where we don't belong, and waste another couple of hundred billions dollars..!

Oh happy day..just F-ing great..!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 11/16/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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