Iraqi lawmakers clash over U.S. troop withdrawal plan

November 20 12:05:02 PM, LA Times

Foes of the current Status of Forces Agreement loudly denounce the pact, which would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by Jan. 1, 2012. Opponents of a U.S.-Iraqi plan that would let American forces stay in Iraq through 2011 blocked debate on the issue today during a raucous session of the national Parliament.

At the same time, more political blocs expressed wariness of the pact, dealing a setback to American and Iraqi officials who had hoped the deal would pass into law without fierce political infighting.

  Photos: Iraq in photos Status of Forces Agreement text Iraq's Maliki defends security pact A guide to the U.S. security agreement with Iraq There is no indication that the plan's opponents can muster the votes to defeat it in Parliament, but Prime Minister Nouri Maliki needs broad-based support for the agreement to avoid deepening rifts that have hobbled efforts at reconciliation. Maliki also faces provincial and national elections in 2009 and cannot afford to be seen as pushing a plan overly favorable to the Americans, as foes have described it.

The plan would require U.S. combat troops to leave Iraqi cities, towns and villages by July 1. All troops would leave Iraq by Jan. 1, 2012. American forces would be barred from undertaking unilateral missions, would be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction under certain circumstances and would not be able to conduct raids or attacks on neighboring countries. It would replace a United Nations mandate expiring Jan. 1.

"It is the best current available option," said Khalid Assadi, a lawmaker from Maliki's Dawa party, which has been backed by several other Shiite groups and by Kurdish parties.

"If we compare the agreement to the [U.N.] Security Council order extending the permission for the presence of [foreign troops], the agreement is better for the Iraqi people because it has fixed dates for withdrawal," said Kurdish lawmaker Muhsin Sadoun.

Maliki said the United States met many Iraqi demands during the eight months of talks leading to the pact, but opponents say the deal doesn't go far enough to ensure Iraqi sovereignty

"The pact will not give legal and legitimate protection for Iraqi assets," said Hassan Shimari, the head of the small Fadhila party, in announcing that its lawmakers opposed the pact. Shimari complained that the country's various political groups were not allowed to take part in the negotiations or to propose amendments. "All we got were viewpoints of some political sides about what the American side wants," Shimari said before the Parliament session opened. "For all these reasons, we will not vote for the pact."

The main Sunni bloc repeated its demands for a public referendum on the agreement, something that could not be organized before the end of the year, when the U.N. mandate governing the U.S. troop presence here expires.

The pact's main detractors are lawmakers loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, who engaged in yelling matches with the Parliament speaker as they tried to prevent the deal from being discussed. Sadr supporters instead demanded that a bill they have proposed that would require a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament to approve agreements such as the security pact should be considered first. Iraqi and U.S. officials say the current law mandates only a simple majority, which would make it far easier to pass the security agreement.

The Parliament speaker, Mahmoud Mashadani, said proponents of the voting bill had not gone through the proper procedures to have it debated.

"Stop this chaos!" he yelled, shaking his hand at a Sadr lawmaker who continued shouting above him. "We can't go on like this!"

At one point, Mashadani threatened to cut off the microphone of a female lawmaker clad in a black abaya as she stood up and hollered at him from across the room. "Sit down!" he demanded, to no avail.

Salah Mutlaq, a Sunni lawmaker, demanded to know why all the country's political blocs had not been brought into the loop on the pact as it was being negotiated. "It's hard to pass such legislation under these conditions," he said. "If there is no accord, we should find alternatives."

U.S. negotiators say there is no alternative, except extending the U.N. mandate or ceasing all U.S. military operations in Iraq as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Susman and Rasheed are Times staff writers.

tina.susman@latimes.com; saif.rasheed@latimes.com

Times staff writers Usama Redha and Caesar Ahmed and a special correspondent in Baghdad contributed to this report.



More... BABYLON & BEYOND Observations on the life and times of the Middle East. • displayFeed('[babylonbeyond][1]');
• displayFeed('[babylonbeyond][2]');
• displayFeed('[babylonbeyond][3]');
Thanksgiving guide: tryptophan fantastic It's November and it's officially fat-pants season. That's right.   Support your local restaurant Go ahead and cut back on dining out if you need to, but don't cut it out of your budget altogether. Southern California's restaurants need your dollars.   Save over 50% off the newsstand price. Click here to subscribe to The Times.   // JavaScript Document if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Firefox")>-1){ aa=document.body.getElementsByTagName("h1"); if (aa.length>0){ if (aa[0].className=="orgurl" && aa[0].childNodes[0].tagName=="A") { aa[0].childNodes[0].style.color="#666"; aa[0].childNodes[0].style.textDecoration="#666"; aa[0].childNodes[0].style.cursor="default"; } } }
Email | Print | Text  | RSS
Most Viewed Most E-mailed

Source

Related articles

More Politics
back to top
Your Ad Here
News Buzz © 2007. About Us Politics | Entertainment | Business | Tech