Iraq and their new government are finally getting the hang of their Arab democracy. The SOFA has been approved by a substantial majority, laying out the transfer of the nation’s security from the US to Iraq over the next three years.
US coalition forces will be leaving the urban areas by June 2009, with complete withdrawal by Jan 2012. What is not clear is if the US or Iraq may attempt, or have the options to be flexible with events on the ground.
The security deal must now be ratified by the three-member Presidential Council, which is expected to approve it.
The security pact has been described by al-Maliki as a path toward full sovereignty.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Iraq, welcomed the Iraqi parliament’s approval of the pact, which is divided into two agreements governing security, economics, culture and other areas of cooperation.
“Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq,” they said in a statement. “They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression.”
The vote had been delayed by one day because of the disputes among the political factions, which have hampered reconciliation efforts after years of war.
Expect the left spin machine to go into full gear, attempting to lay this accomplishment at the feet of their President-elect. But the Bush plan all along as been to return security of Iraq to the Iraqis when they were capable of defending and governing themselves. For the battling factions to have come to agreement, and compromise, on their issues with the SOFA is a positive step forward in that new nation’s progress.
Lawmakers voted with a show of hands, and an exact breakdown of the parliamentary vote was not immediately available. But parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said an “overwhelming majority” of lawmakers who attended the session voted in favor. Parliament’s secretariat, which counted lawmakers as they entered the chamber, said 220 out of 275 legislators attended.
“This is a historic day for parliament,” said Deputy Speaker Khalid al-Attiyah, a close ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “More than three-quarters of those present at today’s session voted for the agreement, and that was not expected.”
Al-Maliki appeared to have won the comfortable majority that he sought in order to give the agreement additional legitimacy.
The country’s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had indicated that the deal would be acceptable only if passed by a comfortable majority.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh urged those who opposed the agreement to accept the decision by the parliament.
“Iraqis should now feel that they have the control and they have to take the full responsibility” for security, he told Associated Press Television News. “Even those who reject this share the responsibility in order to reform the country and in order to stabilize the country.”
Sunni lawmakers, whose sectarian group dominated Iraq under Saddam but now struggles for influence with the Shiite-led government, said they were reluctant to support the security deal.
“Our conditional approval does not mean that we do not have reservations on many causes mentioned in the agreement and we do not have fear about the future implementation of the agreement,” said lawmaker Salim Abdullah, who is also a spokesman for the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, the 44-seat Iraqi Accordance Front.
There are a bloc of 30 lawmakers loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who staged a protest. The wanted the US to leave immediately…
Evidently, a request not shared by the majority of the lawmakers.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Hmmm… the Iraqis want us to stay??? Has anyone informed the “news” media? Do Democrats in Congress know? Has someone gone to the gym and told his highness Lord Obama?
Interesting that their Parliament had to ratify the agreement, but our Congress (specifically, the Senate, as called for in the Constitution) did not; apparently they consider it to be a treaty, while we consider it to be some sort of non-binding resolution.
Plenty of wiggle room there … both for leaving early (don’t count on it) and for staying longer.
Nut-crunching time comes, of course (assuming the agreement lasts that long), during the six months after US troops withdraw from the cities — if the place goes up in flames at that point we won’t be going anywhere; we will be imposing Biden’s partition plan “for their own good”.
Bottom line: We invaded (all other considerations aside) to establish a permanent military presence in the region, and we will do that one way or another; if Iraq shows signs of an internal stability strong enough to survive our withdrawal, we will not waste much time re-destabilizing it (see recent arms delivery to the Kurds).
Obama’s just there to put a smiley face on the whole thing …
…Not so fast.
Nope. Don’t expect that.
You forgot this part:
AFT adds a bit more:
Expect this from the left:
The agreement is conditional, conditional upon national passage in a national referendum; it has one more hurdle to overcome before it’s a done deal.
Jan, do you have a reading problem? The headline says…
Did I anywhere say it was a “done deal”? And quite frankly, if the US coalition troops leave the cities, and foreign fighters and rebels fill the ranks in their wake, the Iraqis will be the first to request diverting from the SOFA and requesting help to combat the elements.
But no….. As usual, any progress by the Iraqis is poo poohed as not enough or too late by those of your mentality. I guess the only things you are willing to celebrate as good news is something that demeans the other side of America that you don’t agree with.
Your camp has been saying it wouldn’t get this far. No… let me correct, that. Your camp has been *hoping* it *wouldn’t* get this far so you could find another way to bash Bush and glorify Obama. And the President elect – on his summer photo op tour – attempted to get the Iraqis to postpone signing this agreement until a new POTUS took office.
Give it a try…. give a hooo ya for Iraqi progress. Trust me, a small applause track won’t hurt all that much. And frankly, they’ve demonstrated more “bipartisan” unity in this SOFA than our Congress has in almost a decade.
Hmm, so in sixteen months, it will be 2012? 😉
Gee, looks like a lot of progress has been made. Who didn’t see it coming? *cough* More to the point, who didn’t want to see it coming? *cough, cough*
Mata —
Trouble with that Iraqi “bipartisanship” is that it can’t be expected to last (and before I continue please be assured that I fall into neither the Bush nor Obama camps; I just analyze — up to y’all what to do with the information … including ignoring it).
Such cooperation as we’re witnessing is the result of anti-occupation sentiment; their government has to at least look like they’re doing something to put an end-date on US presence, or risk losing any claim to non-puppet legitimacy it has left with the general, long-put-upon population.
Not that different from our own Congress, if you stop and think about it a moment.
It’s politics raised to the nth power — the internal stresses on an occupied nation with severe and unresolved social divides are literally incomprehensible to us — and any side agreements reached among the various parties in order to get that legitimacy-saving pact passed will be null and void once the heat is off.
They have not negotiated anything like a true burying of ethnic/religious hatchets; just shoved ’em under the rug for awhile to chill Joe Baghdad and buy themselves some time — and the resulting very tenuous coalition can be and will be easily exploited by AQ, the Sadrists, and, yes, the US too.
To all appearances, the present government wouldn’t survive a US departure long enough to even shout “Help!” — as you note, it’ll be katie-bar-the-door when we so much as withdraw from the cities; a long-delayed civil war to determine just exactly who over there has the military, moral, and social strength and cohesion to control just exactly how much of the “New Iraq”.
Very much like our own Civil War.
I personally don’t believe they are going to be given that opportunity, by either American party or the leaders thereof — and that includes Barack Obama, who will do what he is told just like all recent American Presidents. On the purely commercial level alone, the Occupation is a rip-roaring financial success for extremely powerful US business interests, who are not going to abandon that cash-cow just ’cause Mr. Obama gives ’em a speech … and the commercial level is only one aspect of the forces arrayed against withdrawal.
And I just don’t read that much resistance into the guy. He’s basically a salesman who has been very successfully selling the “Barack Obama!” product — and he will now be told by the status quo just exactly what he will be selling for the next four years.
It’s an open question whether the American public will continue to buy it …
clikdawg, I can’t say as we disagree an iota here. No… I don’t expect their bipartisanship to “last” no more than I expect our Congress to stay high on the Obama rise to power.
But… instead of gridlock and no agreement, they pounded their way thru the SOFA prior to the UN mandate deadline, and came up with a substantial majority to an agreement that will… no doubt… morph into something else long before 2012.
They will never accomplish burying of ethnic/religious hatchets anymore than our Congress will reconcile the differences between conservative v liberal/progressive/socialist. This disagreement is the natural of a form of democracy in action. (or in our case, a republic in action, using democracy in our elective bodies).
I don’t expect them to become “one” in any religious, or other belief. What I expect them to do is learn to live with the dissent, and still get business done. And, at this point, it appears they have done just that. Leaving the future Obama’factor out of this, I have to celebrate a step of difficult reconciliation for a fledgling country here. And there will be many more.
As for your idea that Obama will become everything he has promised *not* to…. I’m “hoping” for that. But I suspect his deviation from his true desire of socialism is only thwarted by financial realities, and how much worse our economy can be with another 911 on his watch.
I sincerely “hope” that your analysis is more on target than mine, Mata — but I will caution you that the differences among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are in no way comparable to those between Democrats and Republicans; more along the lines and at the intensity levels of Abolitionists and States-Righters in 1860 America: And you know how that panned out, despite all the democracy in action we could throw at it.
Pleasure talkin’ with you … maybe we’ll do it again when things get a little clearer over there …