SOFA passes with 140 of 198 members present (37% total Parliament) *Not* an overwhelming majority.

[seafan]

Another coup for Bush.

Of the 375 members of the Iraqi Parliament, only 198 showed up for this vote. (Many had already left on religious pilgrimage to Mecca, some had received death threats.) So, with half the Parliament absent, Bush got his SOFA passed by 37% of the members. Not such *an overwhelming majority*, as the media spin goes.


This is why Bush did not want the English version of the SOFA to be released in the U. S.


The American people would have learned that:


1. Many of the Iraqi Parliament members had insufficient time to read and understand the agreement.

2. The Pentagon was threatening to pull 150,000 troops out of Iraq immediately, if the SOFA was defeated, yet had been squawking that pulling troops out over 16 months as Obama wanted, was *unrealistic*. This shows, once again, how Bush is using our troops as bargaining chips.

3. Bush will still sit on $10 billion of Iraq's money, held at the Federal Reserve.

4. Bush will still maintain his numerous military bases in Iraq.

5. Bush will enjoy the many loopholes in the SOFA to stay on in Iraq even longer than 2011.

6. Bush will enjoy the many loopholes in just *how* the Iraqis could prosecute wrongdoing by contractors and troops.

7. The Iraqi public has been kept in the dark and not allowed to voice their opinion on any part of this agreement.

Asia Times, November 26, 2008


WASHINGTON
- The Iraqi parliament has its date with destiny this Wednesday, after dozens of its 375 members nearly came to blows debating the proposed US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). And that's not counting an even higher percentage that's not familiar with the final text because they simply had no time to digest it. It's literally a take it or leave it, do or die affair; parliament goes into recess immediately after the vote.

.....

Although they have been joined by the Fadhila party and the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front, the Sadrists still don't have enough votes to block the pact; according to London-based al-Hayat newspaper, for the moment there are 106 votes against the pact. They need 138.

.....

Then there's the unpredictable "pilgrim to Mecca" angle. MPs from all political persuasions - as much moved by religious duty as by concocting a convenient escape route, not to mention dodging the odd death threat - have been leaving on a pilgrimage to Mecca since Sunday.

So that leaves the possibility of the pact being approved by a slim majority and/or overwhelmingly rejected by Sunnis - a certified public relations disaster and far from the "national consensus" Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has stressed would be essential to guarantee his support. (Sistani by the way blasted all Mecca-bound MPS as unpatriotic.)

For the sinister Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the Iranian-trained Badr Corps, the paramilitary arm of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, huge demonstrations like last Friday's in Baghdad, organized by the Sadrists, simply don't matter. The mass demonstration in Firdous Square - where US Marines staged for the cameras the "decapitation" of Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 - was particularly pregnant with meaning: a George W Bush effigy was burned at the same spot. Sadrists and an overwhelming majority of Sunnis see the pact as essentially an early 20th century-style neo-colonial treaty.

Maliki's government is heavily betting on the pact being approved by a simple majority. There's fierce dispute also on this point - according to the Iraqi constitution, it should be a two-thirds majority (not unexpectedly, the Bush administration has already declared it will violate Article II, Section 2 of the US constitution, claiming that no Senate approval of the pact is necessary. An emasculated US Congress has responded with thunderous silence).

.....

Just in case a frantic Maliki keeps threatening that in case of defeat, "extending the presence of the international forces on Iraqi soil will not be our alternative". Maliki goes for the jugular; if the pact is not approved, US forces will be constrained to an "immediate withdrawal from Iraq". Not surprisingly, the US State Department is on the same wavelength. Plus, of course, the Pentagon - which in a surreal twist has been threatening to evacuate 150,000 troops from Iraq in a flash in case the pact is knocked out; this when the Pentagon had been insisting non-stop that withdrawing within president-elect Barack Obama-proposed 16 months is unrealistic.

If the latest version of the pact is to be believed, Blackwater mercenaries - not to mention the full, 163,000-strong, Pentagon-employed private contractor army in Iraq - will finally be subjected to Iraqi law. As an overwhelming majority of Iraqi MPs has not even read the final version of the pact, many are not exactly aware of the definitive terms. As for jurisdiction for crimes committed by US forces in Iraq, many for instance don't know that if a US soldier kills an Iraqi civilian while not on duty, prosecutors would have to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Were the soldier to claim self-defense, he would be tried under US jurisdiction.

MPs also may not be aware that Washington will continue to control at least US$10 billion of assets seized from Iraq under Saddam as well as proceeds from the export of Iraqi oil held into a "Special Purpose Account" on behalf of the Treasury at the Federal Reserve of New York; that's one third of Iraq's total reserves of foreign currency and gold (a weapon deftly deployed by the Bush administration to force the approval of the pact).

Others may be extremely alarmed that Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, Iraq's pro-American defense minister, has more or less implied there's the possibility "some Americans might be needed after" the end of the 2011 deadline for the end of the occupation. Undisguised loopholes in fact allow the Pentagon to stay in Iraq - and keep its cherished military bases - way beyond the 2011 deadline.

.....

International Herald Tribune, November 27, 2008


BAGHDAD: The Iraqi Parliament on Thursday ratified a long-delayed security agreement that lays down a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

The pact was approved by a large majority, with more than 140 of the 198 lawmakers present in the assembly voting in favor. The vote marks a watershed moment in the era of the post-war American occupation, and the onset of a relationship in which Iraq has more sovereignty over U.S. and other foreign troops on its soil.

The new agreement comes into force when the United Nations mandate now governing the American troops expires on Dec 31. It says all U.S. combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 next year, with all U.S. troops leaving Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

.....

The deal was backed by Maliki and his Shiite-majority government, and was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on Nov. 16, but still needed to be ratified by the 275-seat Iraqi Parliament.

That ratification only came on Thursday afternoon, after two weeks of intense and sometimes rowdy debate. The deal was opposed to the end by legislators belonging to the political bloc of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. On the Thursday, they disrupted proceedings during the reading of the agreement by banging on their desks and shouting "Yes, Yes to Iraq. No, No to the Occupier," and "No, No to the Agreement."

It was also initially opposed by many members of Parliament from Iraq's Sunni Arab minority. The Sunni's had leverage because the country's most senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had indicated that the believed any final deal should achieve broad consensus among Iraq's main ethnic and sectarian groups.

One concession obtained by the Sunnis in return for their eventual support was a post-facto referendum to test public support for the pact, to be held by the end of July next year. If the Iraqi public rejects the agreement, it would trigger a mechanism by which Iraq could withdraw from the deal in a year.

"We insist on having a referendum because it is very important to know if our people support this or not," said Saleem al-Jubouri, a Sunni lawmaker.

.....

The murder, rape and pillage of Iraq and America by George W. Bush grinds on.

[robcon]

1. It passed easily, and I'm glad about that.

I think Obama needed this as well

The OP is sour grapes.

[seafan]

2. Up is down, black is white, withdrawing from Iraq is staying indefinitely.

Juan Cole reports:

November 27, 2008

Reuters reports that the Iraqi parliament passed the US-Iraqi security agreement, which stipulates that all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. of 275 members of parliament, 198 attended and 145 voted in favor. That means it barely passed from the point of view of an absolute majority, though it was a clear simple majority.

Apparently the al-Maliki government bowed to Sunni Arab demands that the agreement be submitted to a national referendum, California-style. If that is true, it is possible that it could still be rejected by the Iraqi people. But al-Maliki got it through parliament by painting opponents as implicitly opposing a US withdrawal, and that campaign tactic may work with the general public, too.

So, only AFTER Bush/al-Maliki have now forced through the agreement will the Iraqi people be informed of it and asked for their opinions, even if then.

Others (Iraqi Parliament members) may be extremely alarmed that Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, Iraq's pro-American defense minister, has more or less implied there's the possibility "some Americans might be needed after" the end of the 2011 deadline for the end of the occupation. Undisguised loopholes in fact allow the Pentagon to stay in Iraq - and keep its cherished military bases - way beyond the 2011 deadline.

Brutal occupation and theft of natural resources is peace, in BushWorld.