By Fester:
UPI is reporting that another major Iraqi faction seems to be coming out against the proposed Status of Forces Agreement that the Bush Administration wants to complete by the middle of this summer. This time the faction is the Badr/SIIC group of Iranian friendly Shi'a exiles.
A leading Iraqi Shiite cleric said Monday the status of forces
agreement between Washington and Baghdad could lead to an uprising in
Iraq."It is not to the benefit of the U.S. as a major power to lessen
the sovereignty of Iraq. This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi
people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support
it," Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi told the Iranian state-run
English-language service, Press TV.Modarresi said the strategic framework between Iraq and the United
States needs a full understanding of the situation in Iraq before
negotiations on the arrangement proceed. "It will surely fail if kept
as it is," he said.
Grand Ayatollah Mohammad al-Modarresi is a long standing member of Badr/SIIC which is the dominant faction of the weakening Maliki government. This position of opposition is a significant break from the Maliki line that an arrangment will be made but it also allows for an arrangement to be reached on significantly different terms.
A sub-faction of Dawa under the leadership of Jafari has broken off from Dawa to oppose the SOFA while the Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs have no permanent US bases or forces as a long standing objective. These factions are not quite a majority in parliament but represent the dominant mood of Iraqi public opinion in the Shi'ite and Sunni areas. The Kurdish region may differ.
Dawa is fracturing, Badr is wavering and Maliki is stuck in the role of a puppet --- strong enough to be useful and too weak to be independent.
Update: Comments closed due to proliferation of spam comments that have infested this post.
I know we're in need of a short, understandable term for the proposal that the Bush administration is trying to force through with he Iraqi government in the next six weeks, but I'd like to ask that it not be referred to as a status of forces agreement (SOFA). That's exactly what the administration is counting on -- that and the continued silence of the major media on the proposal.
ReplyDelete1. This proposal is nothing like any of the many SOFAs the U.S. has with governments where there are U.S. bases. It's absolutely unprecedented in the unaccountable power, freedom of action, and impunity it grants the U.S. and the lack of authority for the "host" country.
2. Normal SOFAs are not subject to ratification by the Senate; they're not treaties, just basing agreements. This one countenances U.S. military action in Iraq and in the region without any control by or notice to the Iraqi government or people. Even if the Iraqi government were to agree to it, that provision makes it a treaty, and would require Senate ratification to become binding.
3. Even in the sections dealing just with bases, this one differs from all our actual SOFAs: It defines U.S. bases as Iraqi bases if there is a single Iraqi soldier on the outer perimeter (part of the fingers-crossed trickery that allows Amb. Crocker to be so "comfortable" stating that we don't intend permanent U.S. bases in Iraq).
This proposal is an IMOA: an indefinite military occupation agreement.
Going along with the administration's preferred language is halfway to losing the fight. It happened with the escalation ("surge"), which has left more troops in Iraq than were there in February 2007 and has seen a five-fold increase in U.S. air assaults.
Shiite cleric said it is not benefit to US. Then why US ready to agreement? Why Bush government interest to agreement with US?
ReplyDelete**********
sharu
sofas
sofas