Iraqi Parliament Delays US Troop Pact Vote

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Iraqi Parliament Delays US Troop Pact Vote stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | November 26, 2008 03:38 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Iraqi parliament member Osama al-Najaifi, of the Iraqi National list, speaks to the press outside the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad's fortified 'Green Zone' Wednesday, Nov. 26 2008. Iraqi lawmakers decided amid a flurry of last-minute negotiations Wednesday to delay a vote on a wide-ranging military pact that would have all US troops withdraw from the country by 2011. (AP Photo / Ali al-Saadi, Pool)

BAGHDAD — Iraq delayed until Thursday a crucial vote in parliament on a pact that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq through 2011 after lawmakers, many of them Sunni Arabs, demanded concessions from the Shiite-led government in return for supporting the deal.

The one-day delay and Wednesday's backroom haggling highlighted Iraq's deep divisions, as well as the fluid and often chaotic nature of its politics nearly six years after the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

In the past, sectarian-based disputes and other quarrels among Iraqi politicians have stalled efforts to achieve national reconciliation, although some key compromises have been achieved. While the country appears to be emerging from years of intense violence, mistrust among key factions that seek to preserve or advance their own interests has slowed political progress.

This time, a longtime Iraqi goal _ a clear plan for the departure of foreign forces _ is at stake.

The proposed security agreement provides for the first time since the 2003 invasion a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and offers what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki describes as a path toward full sovereignty for Iraq.

Under the deal, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will also have strict oversight over U.S. forces. The U.N. mandate that currently governs the conduct of American troops gives them freer rein, leading to Iraqi complaints that they are an occupying force intent on preserving U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Lawmakers arrived at parliament for the planned vote Wednesday, but Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said political leaders were working toward a settlement that will clear the way for a rescheduled vote Thursday.

"We have just been told that the general climate is definitely moving toward a solution," said the speaker, adding that all but one of the issues preventing a vote from occurring were settled.

Story continues below
advertisement

He did not identify the issue. But senior lawmaker Ayad al-Samarraie said it was a demand by his Sunni Arab bloc to remove all restrictions on the reinstatement of former members of Saddam's now-outlawed Baath Party in government jobs, and the dissolution of a special criminal court that tried Saddam and sentenced him to death along with several top officials of his regime.

Al-Maliki's ruling coalition appears to be assured of a slim majority in the 275-seat legislature _ about 140 seats _ if the security agreement is put to a vote, but he is seeking a bigger win that transcends religious and sectarian divisions and reinforces the legitimacy of the pact.

Al-Maliki's dilemma has been deepened by the concerns of the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has indicated that the deal would be acceptable only if passed by a comfortable majority. The cleric is revered by Iraq's majority Shiites and he could sink the deal if he publicly speaks against it.

Iraq's government has two options if parliament doesn't pass the deal: renew the U.N. mandate governing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that expires Dec. 31, or ask them to leave immediately. Al-Maliki and top Cabinet ministers say neither option is good for Iraq.

Already, the ruling Shiite and Kurdish blocs appear ready to grant the Sunni Arabs and smaller groups their demand for a nationwide referendum on the pact to be held no later than July 30 in exchange for their support. If that happens, the deal could be approved by parliament, but torpedoed by a "no" vote in the referendum.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the proposed referendum did not necessarily mean the pact will be put off. She said she had spoken to U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and that her understanding is that the referendum process would not delay implementation of the security pact.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Washington remained hopeful that parliament would pass the agreement.

"They're going to keep working at it," he said. "It's a very good agreement. It's good for both Iraq and the United States. And so we'll keep an eye on what they're doing and hopefully they'll be able to get it across the goal line."

One of al-Maliki's deputies, Barham Saleh, said late Wednesday that parliamentary blocs were finalizing a political deal ahead of the vote on the security pact.

"We hope that tomorrow, the agreement will be presented to parliament as well as an agreement on a package of political reforms that the government and parliament will undertake," Saleh, a Kurd, told AP Television News late Wednesday.

If parliament approves the pact, it must be ratified by the Presidential Council, whose three members each have veto power. Two members support the deal. The third, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, is a Sunni Arab who could support it if he believes that parliament's biggest Sunni Arab bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front, has secured enough political gains in pre-vote dealmaking.

In addition to a referendum on the pact, the Front wants bigger representation for Sunni Arabs in the Shiite-dominated security forces and the release of thousands of detainees, mostly Sunnis, who are held in U.S.-run facilities without charges. Under the security deal, detainees will be handed over to Iraqi authorities if arrest warrants are issued.

Al-Maliki says those demands should not be linked to the pact and has pledged to free detainees who were not involved in the insurgency.

BAGHDAD — Iraq delayed until Thursday a crucial vote in parliament on a pact that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq through 2011 after lawmakers, many of them Sunni Arabs, demanded concessions from...
BAGHDAD — Iraq delayed until Thursday a crucial vote in parliament on a pact that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq through 2011 after lawmakers, many of them Sunni Arabs, demanded concessions from...
Filed by Dan Duray  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
23
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:

No Matter How The Puppet Iraqi Parliament Votes On This Security Pact

"Why not?"

"The Iraqi people want their country back."

"Based on?"

"Almost every poll that's been taken.since the invasion."

"But if the puppet parliament rejects this security pact then what?"

"Either the UN Security Council extends its permission for the USA to. occupy Iraq past 12/31/08 or, come 1/1/09, there'll be no legal basis for the presence of American troops in Iraq."

"And then?"

"Troops out now."

"And what a victory that will be?"

"For whom?"

"Humanity."

"

,

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 11/27/2008

Iraq got almost everything they wanted out of this agreement from the Americans because they knew that Bush wanted this before he left office. The Sunnis also appear to have been appeased, so the bill will probably pass in Iraq’s parliament. The problem is the referendum that seems to be part of the deal. The UN mandate that authorizes the presence of US forces ends on 12/31/08, but the referendum is gong to be July 09. What happens if it’s rejected? Does that mean the U.S. forces will all have to pack up immediately and leave? For more see: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 AM on 11/27/2008
- SailFree I'm a Fan of SailFree 29 fans permalink

What is really striking here is that the Iraqi parliament may be behaving in a more decent, democratic fashion than our congress with its knee-jerk obstructionism to anything Bush proposes, its refusal to take opposing minority views into consideration, etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 11/26/2008
- peterg76 I'm a Fan of peterg76 30 fans permalink
photo

If by "obstructionism," you mean "collaboration."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 11/26/2008
- 11907281 I'm a Fan of 11907281 14 fans permalink
photo

What world do you live in??? Were you old enough to read during the Gingrich Revolution? Now that's obstructionism !!!! And please enlighten us on the "obstructionism" to "anything". In September when this economic crisis hit, you had McCain grandstanding in front of the cameras while in the background working to obstruct the bail-out. Are you talking about obstructionism towards fodder for the base, like gays guns and god issues? I think you need to sail back, to reality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 11/26/2008
- Paul I'm a Fan of Paul 32 fans permalink

The Iraqis will wait until noon, Jan 20, 2009 for the final vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 11/26/2008
- SailFree I'm a Fan of SailFree 29 fans permalink

A few days back, another thread which I cannot recall had a post decrying a statement about the Iraqi people's greeting to US troops.

Here is data:

http://blogs.wsj.com/iraq/2008/11/25/looking-back-on-first-encounters-with-american-soldiers/

November 25, 2008, 1:22 pm
Looking Back on First Encounters with American Soldiers

By Jabbar al-Obeidi

The Iraqi parliament is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a security agreement that calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. As lawmakers debate the deal, I’m reminded of my initial encounters with the aliens, or that’s how American soldiers seemed to me back then.

Before I met American soldiers for the first time in 2003, I had heard a lot of rumors about them. People said they had special super powers, like through their glasses, they could see if someone had a gun under their clothes. People thought they had x-ray vision.

The first time I saw American soldiers was on April 10, 2003, the day after the fall of Baghdad. A soldier was riding on a tank, waving at people. He said hi to me and I waved back. Other Iraqis were very happy to see them and welcomed them with flowers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 11/26/2008
- Sarahjan I'm a Fan of Sarahjan 6 fans permalink

Tell me again,what is the US doing in Iraq and why the US needs to continue keeping so many of its soldiers in that country?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 11/26/2008
- freebeer I'm a Fan of freebeer 5 fans permalink

We are taking control of their oil, raising the prices, and doing with it as we please.
We are making billions every week for our defense industry, the one that rules both parties.
We are killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating millions of desperate refugees.

We are doing this because BOTH Republicans and Democrats think it is a good idea.
But Democrats have the added challenge of fooling their supporters into thinking that they do not want this mess. They are very good liars, and with the help of corrupt media they have many trusting people very confused. Each day they reveal more of their intentions to stay the course on Wall Street and on the devastated Arab street.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 11/26/2008

I served two tours in Iraq: '05 and '07. And I can say with certainty that you have no idea whatsoever about what we've been doing in Iraq.

Agreed, we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. But we did. And now we are obligated to not leave until Iraq is relatively stable; they are very close.

95% (my estimate) of the soldiers who have served in Iraq support the mission.

This SOF Agreement is a good thing. When we stop combat patrols and move into the desert, our casualties per month will fall to almost zero (they are already very low).

If the Iraqis do not approve the SOF, we will leave. That may be the best thing that can happen. We can't leave as long as there is a chance of Iraq deteriorating into civil war and chaos. I don't think that will happen now. But in 2005, when I was deployed in Western Iraq, I didn't think there was any way the Iraqis could avoid a full-fledged civil war. The changes brought about by the surge and the Anbar Awakening and Sadr'd Mahdi Army standown are incredible. My last deployment, mid '07 to mid '08, I couldn't believe how far the Iraqis have come. Their Army is 1000% improved. The people are 1000% more accepting of the new government.

We will leave Iraq soon, and while we should never have been there, in the long run, Iraq will be a better place than before we invaded.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 11/26/2008
- SailFree I'm a Fan of SailFree 29 fans permalink

1) Creating, allowing to develop, a stable democracy in the midst of the Middle East. a) an example to other countries. b) a base of operations against rogue nations. c) one less country in which terrorists have an easy time operating bases.

2) Removing a genocidal despot.

3) Creating a country which can help oppose Iran OTHER than by a totalitarian strongman such as Saddam. Don't you favor democracy?

4) Preventing the impression in the Muslim world that the US is a weakling, thus helping deter further attacks and hampering recruitment of terrorists.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 11/26/2008
- solarian I'm a Fan of solarian 15 fans permalink

to bad those were not why we went there it was WMD. then get sadamm. and sailfree why are you not in the military? the usual republican repounse is everyone but me now you can really sailfree by joining the military me been there done that

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 11/26/2008
photo

Let's save the Iraqis all that political maneuvering and get out ASAP. 8 billion a month....and for what? To keep the peace? Saddam was defeated in 3 weeks. The supposed purpose of the invasion has long ago been accomplished (remember Shrub's banner). No more American lives (two soldiers killed just yesterday) and no more money squandered on Shrub's folly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 11/26/2008

Well said.
The sooner we get out, the sooner the Iraqis can work this thing out. More people will suffer form violence.

If we stay there, more people well suffer from violence.

GET OUT NOW!!!

Obama, GET OUT ON JANUARY 20.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 11/26/2008
- SailFree I'm a Fan of SailFree 29 fans permalink

Is it not worth considering that a cut-and-run will only encourage more Muslim attacks by making it appear that their terrorist tactics actually kow the USA, causing us to behave like cowards? If they get the impression that terrorist attacks actually work against us, will it not encourage more?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 11/26/2008
photo

We got the same mainstream media singalong about this as we have with everything else.....

Good things are just around the corner, the deal is almost certain to pass, a few "dead enders" are grumbling, protests in the streets in Baghdad, but Dancing with the Stars is in the semifinals, deal may not pass, deal dead....

I want it to be over and peacefully in the end, but I wanted the truth from the beginning.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 11/26/2008
- SailFree I'm a Fan of SailFree 29 fans permalink

"It's out there..."
--X-Files

Seriously, there is truth, there is fiction, and there is honest error. It is rather clear that there were NO LIES FABRICATED about Iraq in the beginning, just, at most, faulty intelligence. But with the data available, the best decision was made. Thereafter, there were the usual and mostly unavoidable problems that occur in any war. Can you believe it? The enemy actually TRIES to deceive us! Who would have thought...?

Clearly there were attempts to deliberately make the situation worse and force us to leave Iraq on the part of the enemy, who staged various bomb blasts, destroyed mosques, killed civilians, etc. And the MSM were willing accomplices in believing and spreading disinformation.

All is working out fairly well in the end, however. Don't blow it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 11/26/2008
photo

Cheney redacted portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate where they seriously questioned the existence of WMD. They knew curve ball was lying and used what he gave them anyway.

They clearly fabricated the nuclear program....every detail from the centrifuges to the Niger yellowcake. Knew it was false. Used it anyway.

Cheney at the VFW meeting in Nashville, TN August 2002: We have no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.

That is a l i e.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 11/26/2008
- elcojonu I'm a Fan of elcojonu 28 fans permalink

If I were the Iraqis I'd wait a couple of months.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 11/26/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect