Iraqi Parliament Approves US Troop Pact

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

CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | November 27, 2008 09:25 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Lawmakers Nasser al-Isawi, left, and Aqil Abdul-Hussein, loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposed the pact, talk to media after the Iraqi parliament approved by a wide margin a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in Iraq for three more years, in Baghdad, Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban, Pool)

BAGHDAD — The long, costly story of American military involvement in Iraq moved closer to an end Thursday when Iraq's parliament approved a pact that requires all troops to be out in three years, marking the first clear timetable for a U.S. exit since the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

The vote for the security deal followed months of tough talks between U.S. and Iraqi negotiators that at times seemed on the point of collapse, and then days of hardscrabble dealmaking between ethnic and sectarian groups whose centuries-old rifts had hardened during the first four years of the war.

The war has claimed more than 4,200 American lives and killed a far greater, untold number of Iraqis, consumed huge reserves of money and resources and eroded the global stature of the United States, even among its closest allies.

Now an end is in sight, and American troops could leave sooner if President-elect Barack Obama makes good on a plan to pull out combat troops within 16 months of moving into the White House in January.

Some troops are likely to redeploy to face an insurgency that has expanded in Afghanistan even as attacks have diminished in Iraq, where the U.S. believes Iraqi forces are better able to fend for themselves. The terms of the security pact reflect that confidence: U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi towns and cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012.

"This is a historic day for the great Iraqi people," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a 10-minute address on national television. "We have achieved one of its most important achievements in approving the agreement on the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq and restoring the sovereignty it lost two decades ago."

Al-Maliki was referring to Iraq's transformation into an international pariah following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, which led to U.N. sanctions and other penalties.

The security deal must now be ratified by the three-member Presidential Council, which is expected to approve it.

Story continues below
advertisement

In the dealmaking that preceded the vote, Iraq's ruling Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal could be rejected next year if, for example, anti-U.S. anger builds and demands for an immediate withdrawal grow. By that time, however, U.S. troops will likely have left urban areas and will be a less intrusive presence.

Under the pact, Iraq will have strict oversight over the nearly 150,000 American troops now on the ground, representing a step toward full sovereignty for Iraq and a shift from the sense of frustration and humiliation that many Iraqis feel at the presence of American troops on their soil for so many years.

President George W. Bush applauded the approval of the pact, which is divided into two agreements governing security, economics, culture and other areas of cooperation. He said it "affirms the growth" of democracy in Iraq and noted the impact of last year's "surge," or U.S. troop buildup.

"Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely," Bush said in a statement from his mountaintop retreat at Camp David, Md. "But the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament."

The pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs and the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which wanted concessions for supporting the deal.

The Sunni bloc received assurances that the government would work to incorporate into the security forces the mostly Sunni fighters who had turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. The government also agreed to stop pursuing fighters with alleged past links to the Sunni-led insurgency.

The Shiite-led government has previously made those assurances, but there were doubts about its commitment. Pledges of fair treatment were approved in a nonbinding vote in parliament on Thursday.

The 275-seat parliament voted on the security pact with a show of hands. There were conflicting figures for the number of deputies who attended the session, but most reports said three-quarters of up to 200 lawmakers in the chamber voted in favor.

The victory appeared to satisfy the guidelines of the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had indicated that the deal would be acceptable only if passed by a comfortable majority.

A bloc of 30 lawmakers loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who wants U.S. forces to leave Iraq immediately, chanted protests and hoisted banners that said "No, no to the agreement" during the 25-minute session in parliament.

Al-Sadr's militiamen have fought American troops in major uprisings over the years, but the cleric largely disbanded his force and does not appear to pose as much of a security threat as in the past. Al-Sadr is currently in Iran.

Still, anti-American sentiment is likely to remain a flashpoint for discontent in Iraq, where many people suspect the United States will stay to preserve interests in the Middle East such as access to oil.

"I reject this agreement because it was signed under the occupation and was the result of external pressure and lowly political sectarian deals at the expense of the Iraqi people," said Qais Yassin, a Shiite engineer in eastern Baghdad, an al-Sadr stronghold.

Hussein Ali, a Shiite shop owner, said he thought the pact would ultimately have a positive outcome.

"The only thing we want is to live in peace and see the U.S. forces leave Iraq," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.

BAGHDAD — The long, costly story of American military involvement in Iraq moved closer to an end Thursday when Iraq's parliament approved a pact that requires all troops to be out in three years...
BAGHDAD — The long, costly story of American military involvement in Iraq moved closer to an end Thursday when Iraq's parliament approved a pact that requires all troops to be out in three years...
 
Comments
110
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)

The fourteen mega-bases are also being dismantled or abandoned...correct?

The footprint is permanent, I'm afraid. Secure, occupy, and pacify in order to protect the natural gas pipeline running through Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as the multiple oil pipelines connecting Northern Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea.

For the last time: The Mission was Accomplished.

Are there any fools out there still believing we will actually pull completely out of Iraq? A shape change and regional redeployment has happened and nothing else. The timeline for withdrawal is again protracted and meaningless. The uninformed are mollified.

Meanwhile, prepare for a time gobbling, 9-11 Commission-style circus featuring three ring obfuscation professionals who will attempt to end any controversy and rewrite history with stern faces. Prepare once again for trickle down disregard for the law and the further erosion of the Pillars of Democracy. If PE Obama would like to see massive protests then he should go the commission route but he should know that the Internet will not allow the wool to be pulled...by anyone.

Will the Neo Cons be permitted to withdraw into the shadows, permanently shielded from prosecution for dragging our troubled civilization into a totalitarian hell by design? Any commission establishment by PE Obama is a firm yes and definitely not a sign of owning the responsibility to fix the deep foundational problems undermining our nation's laws. Once again, the People are out of the loop.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/pox_americana.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 11/28/2008

As far as I'm aware, the three "super-bases" in Iraq will not be dismantled/abandoned. Why would they? You don't pour billions into military infrastructure to simply abandon it or turn it over. We will maintain a presence at those bases for the forseeable future. My best guestimate is that there will be some sort of concessions made pertaining to American troop presence at those installations. Probably in the form of arms sales discounts and allowing the Iraqi military access to those bases to house military units. Also, those bases are too strategically valuable to just give them up.

Like it or not. I believe we're going to be there in some form or fashion for a while.

We just completed a $10B arms sale to Iraq in September and now we're working on selling them a squadron of F-16 fighter jets at their request.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 11/28/2008
photo

SOFA Complete Text Online:

http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm

Loading is very fast.
Everything on our site is free and permanent.
Each page includes a highlighted link which you can copy/paste for online citation.

Don
Pittsburgh, PA

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 11/28/2008

What , someone didn't pay attention to Barack's 16 month plan???? Oh yeah , we knew that was phony too

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 11/28/2008

Four more years?

Is our new president buying into this? And who's footing the bill?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 11/28/2008

Why do I smell another B ush con? If we start leaving in early 2009 this m adness can end mid 2010.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 AM on 11/28/2008

That's not logistically possible. High ranking military officials have expressed this to Obama, hence his lack of assuring the American people of a 16-month plan.

The main port for the US military is in Kuwait and it takes a long time loading those MPS ships and clearing customs. Not to mention the sheer size of cold-war era styled Army units. Marine Corps units are somewhat easier to pack away and ship since their emphasis is on quick and effective mobility.

The US military has some of the largest air fields at their disposal but a vast majority of the equipment has to be loaded onto a ship.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 11/28/2008

Unless this is a treaty approved by the Senate, it is not US law binding on Obama. He can start pulling out troops the day he takes office. Of course, he could also pull them out more slowly than this timetable, but that would likely cause some backlash, both in Iraq and here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 11/28/2008
- LITU I'm a Fan of LITU permalink
photo

Apparently the Iraqi parliament is not in the loop.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 11/27/2008

WHAT happened to Obama promising them out in 16 months????????

lia r

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 PM on 11/27/2008
photo

This seems too obvious for anyone to have to explain.

0bama is not president and he did not negotiate this deal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 AM on 11/28/2008

Some winners and losers from this vote. First the Sadrists show once again that they are on the outside looking in. They stood against the agreement, but never had the votes to stop it. Not only that, they"re running on being nationalists and anti-American, but it"s Prime Minister Maliki that has usurped that from them. Sunnis, they agreed to vote on the deal for a resolution on reconciliation and a referendum on the SOFA. The Kurds and Shiites still run the government and don"t care about reconciliation. The Sunnis are like a stepchild. Last big loser, Pres. Bush. He said he refused to agree to any timetable for a withdrawal, but that"s exactly what he just agreed to. The Iraqis knew he wanted a SOFA before he left office so they were able to get just about everything they asked for. Finally, the big winner, Maliki. He can now say he told the Americans to leave. This will help him out in the upcoming elections. The problem, everyone is now scared of his power and the Supreme Council and the Kurds were trying to unseat him before the vote. For more see: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 PM on 11/27/2008
photo

It's nice to see that we have brought democracy to Iraq. At least their representative body has the courage and smarts to bring war to an end. Too bad ours isn't as capable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 11/27/2008

"Ours" is what enabled Iraq to end the war; we helped them WIN it, too bad you are not capable of intelligent thought. Back to your moms basement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 11/28/2008

Well said, David.

I wonder if it is still possible to impeach bush junior after he leaves office.

Lech

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 11/27/2008

The cowardly U.S. Congress has failed.

First, it could have asserted the will of the people to stand up to bush. It could have denied funding past a specified date and demanded withdrawal of troops. But our Congress lack the cajones that the Iraqi Parliament exhibits when it specifies a date for the removal of foreign troops.

Second, our U.S. House could have asserted the rule of law by impeaching bush and putting him on trial in the Senate. But the Congress failed. Now, the precedent is that there is no limit on presidential power. We can recover rule of law only when a very brave and resourceful prosecutor in the U.S. or elsewhere brings an indictment and prosecutes bush and others for, among other charges, murder. That is unlikely to happen, though. With that awful precedent, Obama and future presidents (Palin?) may be emboldened to make similar adventures and crimes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 11/27/2008

You have been played by our leaders. Their true intentions were clear from the beginning. They only hinted in hushed tones about these things to get you excited. Impeachment hearings would have dragged all of the senate and house leaders in too, and it would have been clear that indeed they were all part of this. Remember, they all signed the resolution giving the president the power, and they all had access to the same intelligence. They were all so excited to show themselves as hawks that they failed to do the due diligence.

Now, we have Obama. He sold himself as a candidate that would end the war and close Gitmo. You can bet that the war will end on Bush's time table, and that Gitmo will remain open becuase there's no better place to put these prisoners. And Obama will come up with a reason why these are both good ideas.

And you will have been duped again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 11/28/2008

I recall reading elsewhere that the pact left options for a continued American presence after 2012. Does this actually allow for a total withdrawal? What about the fortified Green Zone and other permanent structures built as late as 2007? Maybe I'm questioning a good thing too much.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 PM on 11/27/2008

they are leaving 50 000 tropps there..........you think they are going to let OBAMA ruin their plans>???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 11/27/2008

Boy, you'd think we still have 10's of thousands of troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea, nah, that would never happen. We are there to stay, deal with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 11/28/2008
photo

Just perfect we're allowed to get out of Iraq when the Mayan calender predicts the end of the world as we know it, how's that for timing...?


So if there is a cataclysmic event due to the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy our troops and national guard will be in that sand trap junk yard of Iraq, rather than here in America where they will be needed...

Sounds like a plan to me, yup you betch'ya

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 11/27/2008

Hey DarDar. Did you see that they just caught Ann Pressley's moiderer? Um, do you think he was motivated by the McCain-Palin "campaign of h8te" as you postulated in your comment on 10/21/08? Can you come up with any reason why anyone should take what a maroon like you types seriously? Are you as lowly and pathetic as you would appear or are you just trying to be amusing? I'm ready for your retraction, but I won't hold my breath. Man, I wish that killler had chosen you instead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 11/28/2008
photo

Wheather you are for or against the war, it is the best plan for Iraq people, unless you part of a group of people that liked the despot system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:41 PM on 11/27/2008

Yes, the Iraqis are so happy we came in and totally devastated their country and economy, and killed a million of their civilians. They shower us with flowers and glad tidings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 11/27/2008
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