Iraqi Cabinet Approves Security Pact With U.S.

[dilettante]

This seems to be fairly big news from Iraq. I'll be curious to see how the Obama campaign/administration responds to the concept of 2011 withdrawal date.

That al-Sistani is on board strikes me as crucial, especially since he'd been pretty quiet lately. al-Sadr's dissent is expected and likely to stir up trouble though, as I understand it, al-Sistani is the more influential figure by far.

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet voted overwhelmingly Sunday to approve the security agreement that sets the conditions for the Americans' continued presence in Iraq from Jan. 1 until the end of 2011.
...
The United Nations Security Council resolution that allows U.S. troops to operate in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and, without an extension of the resolution or a separate agreement with the Iraqis like that approved by the cabinet on Sunday, forces of the U.S.-led coalition would have no legal mandate to operate.
...
The draft approved Sunday requires coalition forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by the summer of 2009 and from the country by the end of 2011. An earlier version had language giving some flexibility to that deadline, with both sides discussing timetables and timelines for withdrawal, but the Iraqis managed to have the deadline set in stone, a significant negotiating victory. The United States has around 150,000 troops in Iraq.
...
Under the agreement, U.S. soldiers are still guaranteed immunity except in cases of serious felonies committed while off duty outside their bases.
...
In a crucial development, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, indicated on Saturday that he would support whatever decision is arrived at in Parliament as representative of the will of the Iraqi people. Shiite officials who met with the ayatollah said he found the latest draft acceptable, if not perfect; Ayatollah Sistani also made clear that he did not side with politicians who refused any agreement with the United States out of hand.
...
The anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr had called for armed resistance against any agreement that allowed a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?bl&ex=1226984400&en=719e1c29c315aea6&ei=5087%0A

[partofme]

We are going to have some troops there even then. Obama has even said we will have a force there for quite some time to fight al-Qaeda and for support.

[Michael]

Yes, this is big news, but not entirely unexpected.

The Bush Administration has caved in or comprimised on EVERY core issue that the Iraqis have been working on - including some loopholes that could even see US service personel standing in front of an Iraqi court. That's impressive. And the document essentially guarentees the US withdrawl.

Malaki has signed it and the cabinet has passed it. The Kurds are also on-board and with the Shi'ite 'rump' this can probably pass in Parliament (though it could be tricky getting a legal quarum there).

Grand Ayatollah Sistani is of course the most powerful voice in Iraq as the officially highest ranking and senior Muslim scholar in Iraq. He's been 'disengaging' from active politics lately (he's getting very old) but he's been consistent on insisting that the US-Iraq deal must include a formal US pullout date or it must have a public referendum. This is the real reason for the US willingness to cave-in on so many issues. The alternative was a referendum and that would certainly fail and make Sadr a hero.

Btw, it is not correct to compare Sadr to Sistani - the are two entirely different things - and not competitors. Sadr is more properly to be considered a competitor to Malaki. Sadr wouldn't dream of crossing Sistani. To cross Sistani is to be an outcast from Iraqi society. That just isn't done.

Sistani has the 'symbolic' office of 'Pope' in Iraq. One cannot oppose his views without committing blasphemy.

[neorealist]

Yes, this is big news, but not entirely unexpected.

The Bush Administration has caved in or comprimised on EVERY core issue that the Iraqis have been working on - including some loopholes that could even see US service personel standing in front of an Iraqi court. That's impressive. And the document essentially guarentees the US withdrawl.

Malaki has signed it and the cabinet has passed it. The Kurds are also on-board and with the Shi'ite 'rump' this can probably pass in Parliament (though it could be tricky getting a legal quarum there).

Grand Ayatollah Sistani is of course the most powerful voice in Iraq as the officially highest ranking and senior Muslim scholar in Iraq. He's been 'disengaging' from active politics lately (he's getting very old) but he's been consistent on insisting that the US-Iraq deal must include a formal US pullout date or it must have a public referendum. This is the real reason for the US willingness to cave-in on so many issues. The alternative was a referendum and that would certainly fail and make Sadr a hero.

Btw, it is not correct to compare Sadr to Sistani - the are two entirely different things - and not competitors. Sadr is more properly to be considered a competitor to Malaki. Sadr wouldn't dream of crossing Sistani. To cross Sistani is to be an outcast from Iraqi society. That just isn't done.

Sistani has the 'symbolic' office of 'Pope' in Iraq. One cannot oppose his views without committing blasphemy.

I think its important to note that Sistani represents the Shia population...and while he is one of the 12 Grand Ayatollahs, he isn't sitting at the supreme pinnacle.

[Michael]

I think its important to note that Sistani represents the Shia population...and while he is one of the 12 Grand Ayatollahs, he isn't sitting at the supreme pinnacle.
He's at the supreme pinnacle of Iraqi Shi'ites and that was the only point I was trying to make - that Sadr is not a 'competitor' to Sistani - they are not in the same league.

The Muslim clerical hierarchy is a complicated thing and nothing like western religious hierarchies at all. I just used that example of 'the pope' to illustrate Sistani's inherent cultural influence within Iraq - strictly due to his position.

[Americano]

Yes, this is big news, but not entirely unexpected.

The Bush Administration has caved in or comprimised on EVERY core issue that the Iraqis have been working on - including some loopholes that could even see US service personel standing in front of an Iraqi court. That's impressive. And the document essentially guarentees the US withdrawl.

Malaki has signed it and the cabinet has passed it. The Kurds are also on-board and with the Shi'ite 'rump' this can probably pass in Parliament (though it could be tricky getting a legal quarum there).

Grand Ayatollah Sistani is of course the most powerful voice in Iraq as the officially highest ranking and senior Muslim scholar in Iraq. He's been 'disengaging' from active politics lately (he's getting very old) but he's been consistent on insisting that the US-Iraq deal must include a formal US pullout date or it must have a public referendum. This is the real reason for the US willingness to cave-in on so many issues. The alternative was a referendum and that would certainly fail and make Sadr a hero.

Btw, it is not correct to compare Sadr to Sistani - the are two entirely different things - and not competitors. Sadr is more properly to be considered a competitor to Malaki. Sadr wouldn't dream of crossing Sistani. To cross Sistani is to be an outcast from Iraqi society. That just isn't done.

Sistani has the 'symbolic' office of 'Pope' in Iraq. One cannot oppose his views without committing blasphemy.

I was not surprised by the US caving to virtually all Iraqi demands. We tend to forget that it was Sistani who said Sharia Law had to be included in the Iraqi constitution (when the US had Iraq literally under its heel) or it wouldn't get his nod. It's in there.

It's no different than a majority of Americans still crediting the pathetic US troop surge for reducing violence in Iraq while ignoring al-Sadr's accompanying truce and the US making regular cash payments to Sunni resistance to not shoot at US troops or IED their vehicles.