http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702596.html

According to my memory there are over 100,000 American “contractors” in Iraq.

The reason I consider the article honest, and the reason I posted it, remain the same:

1: Sistani, and most Iraq factions are not in complete opposition
2: No one but a select few know what terms are being bandied about
3: The terms of the agreement for the US side are likely to be made by a new POTUS

You don’t like the article and have said so. Fine. But this is like writing a review about a meal, and you concentrating the restaurant’s drapes, guy. Once again… THE POINT! Follow closely. We should be asking the candidates about this SOFA as part of vetting a new POTUS – all because of this SCOTUS decision.

This article is the first of it’s kind to actually confess the media, and lawmakers of both Iraq and the US know jack shit about the specifics of the negotiations… unlike most that have proclaimed doom and gloom prematurely (on which you so like to rely). So I suggest that you, just like the rest of us, know nothing of which you speak on the demands, or whether there is a chance to findthe medium ground.

Instead, you constantly shroud the process in failure as an inevitable fact. Might I suggest you need an attitude adjustment instead of living daily in negative Nancy mode??

You musta been one impatient kid on Christmas morning…..

Let the process run it’s course. When it’s done, you can criticize to your heart’s content. Until then, I suggest your tarot card reading holds no credibility. But it does reflect who you are, and whether you see a glass half full or half empty.

I made a mistake: Hakim met with Sistani, not Maliki over the 4 condition points. I suppose I mistakingly compressed the “…as long as I’m alive” meeting with the 4 points meeting (that occurred the following week) as last nite it was very late and I was in a hurry.

Therefore, with this change, the “most recent Sistani-speak” isn’t late May, (as you mentioned) but early June:

(UPI) — Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani Thursday set a series of conditions necessary for Iraq to consider any strategic arrangement with the United States.

Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, after meeting with the cleric in Najaf, relayed four points concerning the strategic framework characterizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq following the expiration of a U.N. mandate in 2009.

“The cleric stressed that any long-term pact in Iraq should maintain four key terms including safeguarding Iraqis’ interests, national sovereignty, national consensus and being presented to the Iraqi parliament for approval,” Hakim said.

Hakim said the draft framework is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and does little to remove Iraq from the Chapter VII U.N. Charter authorizing the use of force in Iraq, the Iranian English-language Press TV reported.

http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2008/06/05/Sistani_speaks_out_on_US-Iraqi_compact/UPI-16731212718553/

It’s this important meeting that’s missing from the story— pretty important when you consider Fadhil spends some time on Hakim and his party.

Lastly, I don’t have the time to pluck out all the loose beams in the piece, but it’s not a tight piece; just judging it from Fadhil not mentioning Maliki surprising everyone last week saying, “Iraq has another option that it may use. The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the UN terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil.”

Then Fadhil misses mentioning Sistani’s and Hairi’s opposition; then last, but not least, Hakim, who does enjoy good relations with the Administration, must do more that “walk a tight-rope” (as Fadhil states) with the US and Iran and Iraq …he must defy his Shi’ite constituency! …he must defy Iran!–given Iran’s massive public relations campaign against the agreement.

In my opinion, the piece sugar coated the narrative making it easier to swallow for those that entertain vacant hopes over evidence.

I considered it both because what the article does point out is:

1: Not as many blocs are as opposed to a SOFA, with terms they can accept, as western media has generously portrayed in the past, and

2: There are so few in the inner circles who actually know what the terms are, that news hounds are really passing off speculation and quotes those not in the know as news. It is obvious that neither Iraq nor US lawmakers have a clue as to the terms being bandied about. Thus their comments are nothing more than political posturing about the “what ifs”.

However, the gist of my post – which you choose to ignore (note the title??) – was that the terms of this SOFA must be constructed with the SCOTUS decision in mind for it to be of the highest and best use to US forces. And you know, as I said before, if it doesn’t provide that, I’m just fine to let the pieces fall as they may, and have the US forces come home. That decision for withdrawal then falls on the Iraq govt’s shoulders, and not a POTUS acting against the most recent wishes of President Jalabi, who requested the US forces stay at least another couple of years.

But since you choose to take the side tangent of Sistani iand the SOFA, let’s go there. The most recent Sistani-speak is late May, saying he would not allow the signing of the agreement “as long as he is alive”. Sounds ominous, eh?

But, to place that in a realistic context, in the next breath he fully supported the Iraqi government and their efforts to establish security and stability in the country.

A quote attributed to the head of the Shi’ites United Iraqi Alliance block, Sheik Jalaluddin Al-Saghir, said via a comes from a KUNA article May 24, 2008:

…these press reports about the alleged fatwa “are totally baseless.” He said the policy of Sistani was based “on resisting the occupiers via peaceful means and he is still supporting the political process therefore there these claims are false.”

A source close to Sistani in Najaf said the senior cleric did not issue the fatwa, and was still committed to his previous position which emphasized that Iraq was not a scene for “jihad or armed confrontation.” The source, speaking to KUNA on condition of anonymity, said Sistani’s position was clear since the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime. “He had called repeatedly for peaceful resistance to get the foreign forces out of Iraq,” he added.

Again you are talking whispered media rumours here when you assume Sistani will instigate some violent civil war. Fact is, there has been no fatwa for armed resistance issued. And that follows Sistani’s behavioral history. He has opposed the US and coalition forces presence since day one. Therefore, it’s not surprising he’d continue that attitude with any possible SOFA.

But also historically, Sistani has consistently sided with the Iraqi govt. On the times when he disagrees, he has advocated only peaceful resistance, instead utilizing the Iraq legal and political channels. If his influence remains that powerful, there should be no problems in Sistani getting his way with both the population, and the Assembly. Additionally, he does not give Sadr support in his armed resistence and has slapped him down – albeit gently – each time.

BUT… there is nothing in his past that suggests he would instantly turn to violent fatwas… as the erroneous rumours suggested he did a few weeks ago.

The Shia majority are going to take in consideration all factors – including Sistani’s demands – and try for the agreement that best suits them. The US will try for an agreement that best suits us. We’ll either land in the middle, or it won’t happen at all and Iraq may be forced to secure the country withouany US help.

What is most likely is the final say on the SOFA terms (for the US interests) is likely to be the next POTUS and his Pentagon advisors. If it’s Obama, it’s entirely likely that Sistani will be happy as a pig in poke, because I don’t expect Obama to stand up for the protections and interests of the US military for a base there. I’d wager he’d cave to Sistani and the Iraqs, leave a shadow force there with all personnel at the mercy of Iraq law.

Since we wouldn’t have sovereignty in that event, that may cure the issue of habeas for any detainees. Then again, our base personnel may be answering, in essence, to the Iraqis in their daily operation. I’d rather be gone completely than have a base under those terms.

Either way, both candidates should be questioned in depth on their ideal US terms for a SOFA… most especially in the wake of this SCOTUS BS.

In one word I can tell you why this piece is not “one of the best,” nor possibly “one of the most honest” pieces I’ve read regarding this subject: Sistani. His name is not even mentioned and he’s the one man that can, if he wants, put all the Shia parties in parliament in his pocket and do what he wants.

The greatest possible obstacle in this agreement: Sistani, the premier Iraqi Shiites’ source of emulation, not a single word; The Grand Ayatollah, who told Bremmer to take his government by fiat and ’stick it’; the Highest Cleric, who set 4 conditions for this agreement spoken personally to Maliki, himself: 1. transparency, 2. defending national governance, 3. national consensus and 4. approving the agreement by parliament …not a word about him or his conditions.

We might need to remind Fadhil that this SOFA story resided only in “wonkville” until news broke that there were rumors of Sistani giving out personal fatwas against US troops; then days later decreeing troops shouldn’t be given water or food; …days later his spokesmen stating he opposed the agreement; …days later he ends up meeting with Maliki and giving him his 4 conditions for the agreement.

It’s utterly fantastic this aspect of the story is left out.