Top Shiite Cleric Expresses Concerns Over US-Iraq Security Pact

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

HAMZA HENDAWI | November 29, 2008 01:05 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Iraqi civilian looks at the wreckage of a car bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, Nov. 29, 2008. A parked car exploded Friday evening in central Baghdad, killing at least three people and wounding 13, according to police and hospital officials. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

BAGHDAD — Iraq's top Shiite cleric has expressed concern about the country's security pact with the United States, fearing it gives too much power to the Americans and does not protect Iraqi sovereignty, an official at his office said Saturday.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's comments fell short of outright rejection but will put pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government to sell the deal to the public before Iraqi voters render a final decision in a referendum to be held by July 30.

The pact also has to be ratified by Iraq's three-man presidential council before it comes into force.

Al-Sistani, who wields tremendous influence among Iraq's majority Shiites, had indicated that he would not object to the pact if it was passed by a comfortable majority in parliament.

Parliament approved the agreement Thursday in a session attended by just under 200 of the legislature's 275 lawmakers. Of those in attendance, about 150 voted for the pact, which would allow American forces to remain in Iraq for three more years.

The official at al-Sistani's office said the Iranian-born cleric did not believe there was a national consensus in favor of the pact and that this "may lead to instability in the country."

The official added that al-Sistani considered parts of the agreement vague, particularly those pertaining to legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and controls over the exit and entry into Iraq of American forces.

The agreement was backed by the government's Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni Arab blocs, but was opposed by the 30 lawmakers loyal to anti-American Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr as well as smaller groups.

Story continues below
advertisement

A deadly rocket attack on the U.S.-protected Green Zone early Saturday bore the hallmarks of Shiite militiamen loyal to al-Sadr and may also have been linked to the security deal.

The rocket struck near a U.N. compound, killing two foreigners and wounding 15 people.

Al-Sistani also believed the pact did not offer sufficient guarantees to restore Iraq's full sovereignty or protect its assets, according to the official, who spoke from the cleric's office in the holy city of Najaf south of Baghdad on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.

He also thought al-Maliki's government was not strong enough to withstand "American pressure" when implementing the agreement. Al-Sistani, the official said, will leave "the acceptance or rejection of the agreement to the Iraqi people through the referendum."

The agreement gives a clear timeline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, from the cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. It gives Iraq strict oversight over their movements and operations as well as limited jurisdiction in the case of serious crimes committed by U.S. soldiers and civilian Pentagon employees when off-base and off-duty.

If the agreement is rejected by voters, Iraq's government would either have to re-negotiate it with the Americans or drop it altogether. Putting the agreement to a vote was one of several concessions made by the government to a group of lawmakers, most of whom are Sunnis, in exchange for their support for the pact.

Al-Sistani doesn't speak to reporters or give media interviews and communicates his views through edicts or leaks to the media by officials at his office.

He could have buried the agreement had he publicly spoken against it before Thursday's parliamentary vote. But the comments attributed to him Saturday clearly show he was unhappy about the margin of support it had won in the vote.

His comments are likely to be welcomed by the Sunnis who had campaigned hard to get the Shiites and Kurds to meet their demand to put the pact to a popular vote.

But al-Sistani's views leave al-Maliki and his Shiite allies in the awkward position of having to sell a deal that doesn't enjoy al-Sistani's full backing.

Saturday's rocket attack in the Green Zone occurred as al-Sadr's followers hoisted black flags on houses, mosques and Sadrist offices in their Baghdad stronghold to protest the U.S.-Iraqi pact.

Tech. Sgt. Chris Stagner, a U.S. military spokesman, said American explosives experts determined Iranian-made rockets were used in the Green Zone attack as well as another late Friday that targeted Camp Victory, the main military headquarters on Baghdad's western outskirts. That attack caused only minor damage, he said.

The U.S. military accuses Iran of providing weapons, funding and training to Shiite militants who attack U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran has consistently denied the charge.

The attack on the U.N. compound was the first in more than a month against the Green Zone _ a sprawling central Baghdad area that also houses the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government offices.

Rocket and mortar strikes against the U.S.-protected Green Zone have been common throughout the war but tapered off after al-Sadr declared a cease-fire, ending weeks of fighting between the Mahdi Army militia and U.S. and Iraqi troops in the spring.

The U.N. did not give names and nationalities of the dead pending notification of relatives. But the U.N. said no Iraqi or international U.N. staff members were among the casualties. The dead worked for a catering company, the U.N. said.

BAGHDAD — Iraq's top Shiite cleric has expressed concern about the country's security pact with the United States, fearing it gives too much power to the Americans and does not protect Iraqi sov...
BAGHDAD — Iraq's top Shiite cleric has expressed concern about the country's security pact with the United States, fearing it gives too much power to the Americans and does not protect Iraqi sov...
 
Comments
15
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:
photo

I don't get how this is legal or binding. The U.S. Senate didn't vote on it. The current U.N. agreement for U.S. occupation expires Dec. 31, 2008. Was that extended? Where's the additional funding coming from? Iraqis now vote on U.S. expenditures, but the U.S. Congress does not? And the Iraqi people don't vote until July 2009. Plus, I'm still stuck on the president placing U.S. military under the direction ("strict oversight") of a foreign government.

What, exactly, will the U.S. military be doing in Iraq after June 30, once they are withdrawn from the cities? Are they staying there to continue the conduit of private profit into the U.S. (while under the strict oversight of Iraqi leaders), and if so how the he|| does that work? Are they providing some nebulous peacekeeping duties -- and if those efforts are conducted under the oversight of Iraqi leadership, how effective could they be?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 11/29/2008

All of this is just talk. The real war hasn't started yet. The coming Civil War will not be too civil.
The people of Iraq will eventually express their will, but it will be from the end of a gun barrel.
Iraq is a tribal mediaeval society that happens to have the trappings of the modern world. It is the true foundation on which their society stands. Once we are out of the way, the people of Iraq will exercise their right to self determination. The question will be whether or not we can live with the results. We didn't do too well when Hamas was democratically elected. I think we're going to have problems with another Iranian puppet state in the region, unless we change our mind set. We tend to like our puppets, not theirs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 11/29/2008
photo

I was just listen to a Texas radio station and the commentator was talking about how the war in Iraq was over because General Petras and Bush had stop all the violences in Iraq. I am here to tell you they are putting their cart before the horse again. The day US Troops leave Iraq the civil war will be on. If we think that we are going to solve 200 years of of strife between the Sunni and Shiite and Kurds. We are crazy it want happen. Sunni backed by Saudi Arabia and the Shiite backed by Iran will have a civil war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 11/29/2008

"Civil war in Iraq after the U.S. leaves" -- it sounds so much like a slogan someone who listens to Faux News would say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 11/29/2008

Getting rid of our reliance on foreign oil should be our first priority.

That might take up to 20 years to accomplish. Better get started now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 11/29/2008

No matter how cheap the price of oil gets, I would rather pay a large premium for clean alternative energy in order to leave a sustainable planet to our children when I'm gone, and I hope to do my darn best to teach my children to do the same. I realize that I might not have a large sphere of influence, but I'll start with myself and my family, and I urge everyone to do the same. Whether it will take twenty years or more for us to accomplish total independence from foreign oil is irrelevant; rather, what really matters is for us to start today and to do our very best to accomplish this. Like we did for sending a man to the moon, we must set a reasonable target to do that and stick to it. We must focus our energy toward this common purpose, for this is definitely a fundamental way that we can inspire the rest of the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 11/29/2008

The Bush Administration has ignored Al-Sistani from the very beginning. They had other plans. I hope the referendum vote will be a resounding no.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 11/29/2008

Look, here's the problem with the referendum. The Constitution of the United States - Article II, Section 2, second paragraph, describes the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States. "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur;". Without the two thirds favorable vote by the Senate, The United States - the country - is not bound by any agreement worked out between Bush and Iraq.
I guess the agreement will be between Iraq and George Bush personally. His family has money but, I doubt that it's enough to support a whole army for any length of time.

Another problem is the timeing. The United Nation refferendum that allowed the invasion of Iraq, expiers Dec. 31. After that time it will be illeagle for any country to continue to occupie Iraq. The Iraqi people don't vote on their refferendum until July. All forign soldiers have to be out by Jan. 1. Even if the Iraqi people vote in favor of the referendum in July, nobody's comeing back.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 11/29/2008
photo

It's too late for both our nations there, Iman..!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 11/29/2008

What a garbage! Grand Ayatollah is "iran-born" and Iraqi citizen. where in the world did you get the info. that he had "iranian passport"? Historically, Iraq has always been the center of Shi'i learning for not just Iranian but other Shi'is world over and many in the past decided to reside in the holy cities there to teach and guide their followers. Nothing new here. Isn't letting the PEOPLE decide in a referandum the most democratic procedure.? Are you against democracy? I guess you are just like U.S. denying the Hamas legitimacy based on their election by the people.
He has always taken stand against "Occupation", nothing new here. His agenda has never been "hidden", it has been Iraq's sovereignty which does mean an end to U.S. occupation and also Iraqi control over its oil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 11/29/2008

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a wise and pragmatic leader. Agreeing to leave voters to decide the fate of the U.S.-Iraqi security pact via a referendum is definitely a good idea. This way there will be less anger and, hopefully, less violence. For the good of their country and for their own sake, the Sunnis and the Shiites must find a way to govern themselves in a way that neither group feels disenfranchised.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 11/29/2008

Too Late OH Grand Ayatollah Sistani , You should have spoken earlier , when your words and quotes were too ambigious for the average citizen to comprehend . You were silent , i wonder whether the US were generous towards you . shame on You , ONE word from You and the whole of Iraq would have been behind you and said NO to longer term Occupation . OH i just remembered , you are not even Iraqi but still Iranian with an Iranian Passeport . Your agenda is no longer hidden now . we know now . iraq is joining the Big club of US puppets in the region but I hope the Iraqi resistance (not the snipers who work for the mossad and Blackwater ) will discourage the us for long term occupation .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 11/29/2008

How could a long-term occupation of Iraq be in the U.S. best interest? If it weren't for the fear that the region would descent into total cahos without U.S. provided security, even George Bush would have agreed to get the hell out of Iraq a long time ago. Our best interest lies in one thing: to be completely independent of foreign oil as soon as possible. For one, if we were totally free of our reliance on foreign oil, we would be taken much more seriously around the world as a potential peacemaker; for two, our economy would be once again the envy of the rest of the world. Getting rid of our reliance on foreign oil should be our first priority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 11/29/2008

Oh, you think Bush and others would act in the best interests of the United States. You are mistaken. Bush and his buddies have no interest in doing what is best for this country.The single only reason we are in Iraq is for their oil. The more the oil costs the better it is for oil companies and the speculators. This war has never had anything to do with what is best for this country.

They wave flags, make speaches, appeal to our sense of patriotism and all the while laugh at our gullibility.

It is now, has always been, and will continue to be about oil.

It's a good thing there is no oil in Israel.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 11/29/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

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