UPDATED ON:
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
17:06 Mecca time, 14:06 GMT
News Middle East
Iraq debate on US pact disrupted

Al-Maliki has attacked the pact's critics saying they want US forces to stay in Iraq [GALLO/GETTY] 

Legislators loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leader, have shouted down a parliamentary debate over a security pact that would keep US troops in Iraq for three more years.

The session on Wednesday was adjourned until the following day by Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the parliamentary speaker.

The parliamentary session was adjourned after Ahmed al-Massoudi, a politician loyal to al-Sadr, approached a legislator from the ruling coalition who was reading aloud the text of the agreement.

Al-Massoudi appeared to be about to grab the document, the Associated Press reported.

Personal guards of Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, stopped al-Massoudi from snatching the document.

US occupation

The pact has the support of the ruling coalition but al-Sadr's followers oppose any deal with the US forces and many Sunni Arab groups have reservations.

Iraq and the US signed the agreement on Monday, but it must first pass in the Iraqi parliament before it can take effect.

Hassan al-Shimari, the head of the Shia Fadhila party, has said he will vote against the deal.

"We won't vote in favour of the security pact which has recently been sent to the Iraqi parliament. We hope that the political powers will deal with this matter with pure patriotism, far from party and personal interests," he said.

Even Washington has some reservataions about the agreement as under its terms the US will have to give back Iraqi air space and take troops off the streets by June 2009, before leaving the country entirely by 2011.

Maliki speech

In a speech on state television on Tuesday, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, attacked critics of the pact, saying they wanted the Americans to stay so that they could fight them.

"Truly, they [the pact's critics] want these foreign forces to stay in Iraq because their presence on Iraqi soil has become for them, consciously or unconsciously, a political manoeuvre," al-Maliki said.

"In the past, some political factions carried banners demanding we schedule the withdrawal of foreign forces," al-Maliki said, in an apparent reference to the followers of al-Sadr.

"Regretfully, these same political factions turned away from the nation's demand to achieve this withdrawal ... which has become a reality in the content of the pact," he said. "Some opposed it even before a first draft was written."

Tacit support

Al-Maliki said the Iraqi cabinet had reservations about the pact, but saw it as the best way to return Iraq's sovereignty.

The pact will see US forces withdraw
from Iraq by 2011 [AFP]
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shia cleric, has signalled that he will not oppose the pact, but only if it wins wide backing from across Iraq's sectarian political divides.

"The representatives of the Iraqi people in parliament must take on a big responsibility ... and each must be up to this historic responsibility before God and the people," a statement from his office said.

"What [al-]Sistani told political leaders is that it is necessary to end the foreign presence in any deal," the statement said.

Al-Sistani, who was largely silent on the deal while it was being negotiated, wields vast influence on majority Shia population and a negative word from him could have sunk the pact.

Iranian opposition

Al-Sadr's office has interpreted al-Sistani's position as meaning that all blocs in parliament must back the pact, effectively giving opposition groups a veto.

"[Al-]Sistani said in his statement it is necessary to have a national consensus on this agreement and not a simple majority," Hazim al-Araji, a senior aide to al-Sadr, said.

Iran, which also has much influence among Iraqi Shia politicians, opposes the pact.

Ali Larijani, Iran's parliament speaker, urged Iraqi legislators to resist the deal, saying Washington's main aim was "strengthening comprehensive US hegemony in Iraq".

 Source: Agencies
 
Topics in this article
People

Country

Feedback Number of comments : 19
 
David
Sweden
19/11/2008
Please explain
Why do the groups who oppose American occupation also oppose this pact? Do they claim that only immediate withdrawal is sufficient? Are there, in fact, political advantages for them for as long as the US stays?

jose
Peru
19/11/2008
Troops from friend countries
Question : It would not be better to have friendly troops from another countries different from U.S.A helping in the reconstruction of Irak and for as long as the people of Irak need them ? Irak is one de most ancient cultures in the world , they have the right to find the Kind of Democracy they need and beside they have the knowledge of its society .

J.A Teller
Nicaragua
20/11/2008
Iraq-US pact
Barack Obama offered to WD the US troops from Iraq in no more than 16 month. With or without pact they will WD from Iraq. This is Iraq's time.

dav78
United States
20/11/2008
there is probably some truth
in what maliki says, but there are other reasons for opposition. the US is still granted a tremendous amount of discretion within iraq in this deal. remember that iraq is not a US state. it is a country with foreign troops in it. those who oppose this deal on the basis that it does not demand the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops are on pretty solid ground. not to mention this grants the US short term combat presence, long-term bases and the chance to re-negotiate later on.

FRED MARTIN
Iraq
20/11/2008
STAND YOUR GROUND
IT FELL GOOD TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT WILL STAND UP AGAINIST WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY. AN NOT FOR US, A COUNTRY THAT IS NOT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE JUST MONEY AND GREED.

David
United States
20/11/2008
Muqtada is not a hero of the people
I am a soldier currently in Iraq and the reason Muqtada wants U.S. Forces out of Iraq as soon as possible is because he is losing power over the Iraqi populace. In a time of dispair Muqtada took advantage of people's fears and divided this country for his own goals. He is responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths and should be held accountable for his crimes. With U.S. presence supporting the GOI Muqtada can not become another Saddam. We will leave when the Iraqi people want us to leave.

supersocialist
United States
20/11/2008
al Sadr responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths
By this same reasoning David the U.S. should also be held accountable since it has caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. And since Nuremburg principle IV states that you have a moral choice to disobey orders and relieve your superior in the face of said orders you are a war criminal as well. We all remember that low level Nazis said they were just following orders are you too just following orders David. If so then you should be held accountable as well for all the deaths as well.

Aaron
Canada
21/11/2008
the antics coming from iran are truly astounding. for surely, it is not an unknown fact that iran most assuredly has already given this text tacit approval - otherwise there is no way it would have even been able to pass the cabinet. all a political game about maintaining the image...

Adrian B
Canada
19/11/2008
Maliki has it right
"In the past, some political factions carried banners demanding we schedule the withdrawal of foreign forces," al-Maliki said, in an apparent reference to the followers of al-Sadr. "Regretfully, these same political factions turned away from the nation's demand to achieve this withdrawal ... which has become a reality in the content of the pact" This is so true. Al-Sadr has always been vocal about the need for a timetable for withdrawl, and now that that is being given to him, he rejects it

W.James
United Kingdom
20/11/2008
Iraq debate on US pact disrupted
The Iraqis have right to determen the course of there country, American and it is allies must leave the country.

glen roberts
United States
20/11/2008
Iraq pact disrupted
Some respondents here are parroting Al-Maliki without much thought. Obama has promised to pull the troops out in 16 months (June 2010) and they are currently due to leave this December 31. Considering the absence of any initial reason for being there, if they'd gotten out yesterday, it would be OK. This deal represents the longest extention of foreign troop presence yet and objections make sense. Glen Roberts, nottalkradio.com

Dhoruba Bin-Wahad
United States
20/11/2008
Kick the Invaders out!
Clearly there's political advantage for the current government should a US presence continue for another 3 years. The US can prop up politicians it favors & rendition the rest. Therefore as long as US attack dogs are in the country those political factions that may arise after the US leaves are subject to attack as "terrorist" sympathizers,or worst, Iranian stooges. Don't forget the massive fortress of the Green Zone will remain from which to launch covert missions across the region.

Aracanga
Brazil
20/11/2008
US pact on Iraq
In order for the world to have nice expectations of Obama's govt it is essencial the immediate pull out of US troops of Iraq, and the close of the Guatanamo prison. Both are shames for the US.

Enzo Ennui
Australia
20/11/2008
Iraq-US pact
A pact drawn up by the puppet and his masters. A definite non-starter. The elections were a sham. Anybody claiming to represent the people of Iraq are falsifying their representation. The U.S. & U.K. should get out as soon as possible and pay reparations of the destruction their bombs and bulles caused. Shame on them both.

Noliving
United States
20/11/2008
RE supersocialist
Ya but unlike US forces he doesn't have a UN mandate to kill fellow iraqi civilians, he basically ethnically cleansed baghdad to consolidate his power in baghdad, he is no better then the US. US forces that purposely kill iraqi civilians should be tried.

J. Michael Springmann
Iraq
21/11/2008
Illegal, Unconstitutional Occupation Opposed by Al Sadr
Let's see if I have this right: Imperial Storm Troopers invade a sovereign State without reason. However, it is unreasonable & unIraqi to demand that they leave. What would happen if this approach were applied to the illegitimate & terrorist State of Israel?

David
Afghanistan
21/11/2008
Response to Supersocialist
In response to supersocialist who responded to my comments above. My top orders from my superiors in Iraq is to protect the Iraqi civilians at all cost even if it means sacrificing my life. My next order is to build up their economy and necessities of life. I have never killed an Iraqi and if you read our COIN manual which is free online you will understand our motives. The Iraqis are not afraid of U.S. soldiers - they are afraid of violent un Islamic Iraqis.

David
United States
21/11/2008
On the ground
Everyday I am in the homes talking to hundrends of Iraqis. The majority of Iraqis prefer U.S. to keep its presence in the country, but it is the U.S. that is encouraging a withdrawal. The U.S. soldiers are providing the peace and rebuilding the cities that were torn by sectarian violence. We are the peace and many Iraqi civilians are afraid what will happen when we leave the cities. They are afraid Jaysh al-Mahdi, Islamic Army, and AQI will bring death again. U.S. soldiers long for peace.

David
United States
21/11/2008
Misinformed
It seems the majority of the people who respond are misinformed about the issues and what is really going on in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I have interacted Iraqi and Afghanistan government officials, civilians, and security forces. When there is a military policy or operation I disagree with I made it known.

 
ARTICLE TOOLS
 Email Article  Email article
 Print Article  Print article
 Send Feedback  Send feedback
 Share article  Share article
Aljazeera.net/english 2003 - 2010 ©
Designed & Developed by Aljazeera IT