Iraq's Prime Minister Won't Sign US Troop Deal
http://www.truthout.org/102508E
Baghdad - Fearing political division in the parliament and in his
country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-
completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading
lawmaker said Friday.
The new accord's demise would be a major setback for the Bush
administration, which has been seeking to establish a legal basis for
the extended presence of the 151,000 U.S. troops in this country, and
for Iraq, which won notable concessions in the draft accord reached a
week ago.
"No, he will not" submit the agreement to the parliament, Sheikh
Jalal al Din al Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic
Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy. "For this matter, we need
national consensus."
Instead, Sagheer said, Iraq's political leaders are considering
seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate for the presence of
U.S. troops, which will expire on Dec. 31. Russia, a permanent member
of the U.N. Security Council, has assured Iraq that it wouldn't veto
an extension, he said, adding that one was likely to last between six
months and a year.
Ali al Adeeb, the chief of staff of Maliki's Dawa party, said
Wednesday that the Iraqi parliament "cannot approve this pact in its
current form."
Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if
the agreement isn't signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq's forces "will
not be ready to provide for their security" after the current U.N.
mandate runs out. "And in that regard there is great potential for
losses of significant consequence," Mullen said.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA
Today: "Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to
cease all operations."
Iraqis, however, are adamant that the accord must be open to
further amendments if they're to approve it.
"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were
told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the
Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic
cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national
television.
He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National
Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the
best he could obtain, but it didn't include everything that Iraq
wanted.
If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament,
"I'm sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years,"
Sagheer said.
The cleric said the draft accord was "good, in general," but its
timing was bad. If an Iraqi negotiator accepted the agreement, "he
will be taken as an agent for the Americans," and if he were to reject
it, "he will be taken for an agent for Iran."
A second factor is that the accord comes just before the U.S.
elections, and an Iraqi negotiator had to ask whether it was best to
negotiate with the lame-duck Bush administration or wait for its
successor. More important, Sagheer said, are the approaching
provincial elections in Iraq, which could be held early next year.
"Iraqi politicians don't want to give their competitors the chance
to use this agreement to destroy them," he said.
The accord contains a number of American concessions, calling for
U.S. troops to withdraw to their bases by June 2009 and to leave Iraq
by the end of 2011 - both dates subject to extension, but only if the
Iraqi government requests it.
The accord also would allow Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops except
when they're on U.S. bases or on military operations, strips private
military contractors of U.S. legal protection and reclaims control
over Baghdad's "Green" zone, the location of the U.S. Embassy and
military headquarters and much of the Iraqi government's headquarters.
Sagheer said that setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal
was a "historic" accomplishment.
He also acknowledged that an extension of the current U.N. mandate
might not reflect the gains made in the status of forces draft.
"For everything there is a price," he said. "And although (the
accord) has many advantages, it also has many disadvantages, as it
does for the coalition forces."
The problem for Iraqis, he said, was "the feeling with some of the
parties that America has no intention of withdrawing within the
timetable." Iraqis, he said, had so many negative experiences while a
British mandate under the League of Nations from 1920 to 1932 that
they fear a written agreement. "We have the feeling that if the Iraqi
government accepts the demands, it will give a legal right to be
occupied, so we don't have any kind of sovereignty."
Other politicians said that if Washington agrees to extend the
negotiations, the talks will never end.
"This is all a game to win time. When the current issues are
settled, they will just find new ones.... They are delaying to appease
Iran," said Mithal al Alusi, a secular Sunni legislator whos' critical
of the current Shiite-led government.
--------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
