Iraqi Pols Approve U.S. Troop Pact
After Concessions, Sunni Bloc Backs Measure To Keep Forces In Country 3 More Years
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Another 3 Year Stay
The Iraqi Parliament has reached an agreement allowing U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for another 3 years, although Iraqi security forces are expected to take over by 2009. Elizabeth Palmer reports.
-
Video
An Iraqi Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving for the American soldiers in Iraq had all the trimmings. As Elizabeth Palmer reports, the invitation of Iraqi soldiers is a sign of the improved situation in Iraq.
-
Video
Tenuous Vote On Iraq Timetable
Iraq's parliament will vote on a bill to set a U.S. troop withdrawal date after appealing to ethnic groups to remain calm, reports Elizabeth Palmer.
-
-
Photo
A U.S. Army soldier, of Iron Hawk, Third Squadron, Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, walks behind barbed wire of a check point during a routine patrol in Sukor neighborhood, northeastern Mosul, Iraq, on Nov. 24, 2008. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
-
Photo
U.S. Army soldiers, of Iron Hawk, Third Squadron, Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, secure the area at a check point during a routine patrol in Sukor neighborhood, northeastern Mosul, Iraq, Nov. 24, 2008. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
-
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
The Iraqi government's Shiite bloc reached an agreement earlier in the day with a group of mostly Sunni lawmakers to secure the measure's passage.
In exchange for their vote, the Sunnis won a major concession from the pact's staunch supporters; a national referendum will be held on the agreement.
Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, earlier confirmed that a deal was reached and that his 44-seat bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front, would support the security pact in Thursday's vote.
He said the agreement met the demand by his bloc and smaller groups that a referendum on the pact be held by July 30. That means the deal could be approved by Parliament, but torpedoed by a "no" vote in the referendum.
Shiite lawmakers Khalid al-Attiyah, Sami al-Askari and Ali al-Adeeb told the Associate Press that the deal did not include two other key Sunni demands: the repeal of a law designed to weed out former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, and the dissolution of a special court that tried the dictator and top officials of his regime. Saddam was sentenced to death and executed in 2006.
The security pact meets an Iraqi goal of a clear timetable for the departure of American forces and has been described by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a path toward full sovereignty for Iraq.
White House press secretary Dana Perino called the vote "an incredible success story for our military and for the Iraqi Security Forces."
"The June 2009 date is consistent with the Joint Campaign Plan, and the end of 2011 date should give U.S. forces and the ISF enough time to solidify gains made in the last year," Perino added.
But CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported from Baghdad that, while most military analysts say the Iraqis are not ready to take over security duties yet, there is broad recognition that the national forces have made huge strides in the last year.
One small but symbolic piece of evidence of that improvement came Thursday as U.S. troops at Falcon Base, south of Baghdad, enjoyed a Thanksgiving feast - alongside their Iraqi counterparts.
Palmer reports that mistrust between American and Iraqi troops is genuinely starting to melt away as they work more closely together.
With the Status of Forces agreement specifying that, essentially, U.S. troops will be confined to their bases in Iraq as of June 2009, those Iraqi counterparts are now mere months away from taking the lead.
The parliamentary debate over the proposal was subsumed by sectarian-based disputes among political factions that have stalled efforts to achieve national reconciliation nearly six years after Saddam's ouster. The haggling among political factions delayed the vote, which was originally scheduled for Wednesday.
Iraq's Shiites and Kurds, who comprise about 80 percent of Iraq's 27 million people, were the target of massacres and other atrocities under Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime. Grievances run deep, and caving in to Sunni demands on the special court and the Baathist law could have produced voter backlash ahead of provincial and general elections in 2009.
Lawmakers were under additional pressure to vote on the security pact because the legislature is expected to go into recess in the next few days because of an Islamic holiday.
Now that parliament has approved the pact, it must be ratified by the Presidential Council, whose three members each have veto power.
The U.N. mandate governing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and the pact will provide legal cover for the troops to remain.
Under the deal, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will also have strict oversight over U.S. forces. The U.N. mandate that currently governs American troops gives them freer rein, leading to Iraqi complaints that they are an occupying force intent on preserving U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Earlier, al-Maliki's ruling coalition appeared to be assured of a slim majority in the legislature of about 140 seats. But he sought a bigger win that transcends religious and sectarian divisions and reinforces the legitimacy of the pact. He achieved that wide margin with the Sunni bloc's votes.
The wide margin met the demands of the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had indicated that the deal would be acceptable only if passed by a comfortable majority. The cleric is revered by Iraq's majority Shiites, and he could have sunk the deal if he had publicly spoken against it.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary



No problems anyway. The UN Security Council (the only part that actually matters) is our sock puppet.
Posted by BIAP64 at 11:22 AM : Nov 27, 2008
So true, but liberal minded people don''t really understand freedom and democracy?
LOL, however, Obama said he will begin withdrawing as soon as he is in office, hopefully we will be OUT of there within ONE year or even less.
Posted by BIAP64 at 11:22 AM : Nov 27, 2008
---------------------------------------
TO BIAP64....Iraq has roughtly 350,000 troops in its security force which we have been training since 2003 and also paying.
In view that we are spending over $15 billion per month (borrowed funds) and have spend over 4000 lives there, and our current poor economic condition, do you not think we have done more than enough there?
Have you been to combat, I have, with out a military there wont be no democracy, you wont even have a computer to type on, you will be hung and casterated.
I am of generation of military since the beginning of USA, dont like it leave!
Maybe a world with out any law and order is what you want, you would be dead today, think about that.
You all want history to repeat itself, Genocide!
We went over there and liberated I saw first hand, they didnt have computers, internet or cell phones, till we got rid of the regime.
Imagine you without access to the world. You might have forgot what happened in the 90''s when he gassed kuwait, and the kurds. The world is better off without Saddam. Dont forget there was no fly zones from Billy. The forgotten war.
Welfare checks, what a disgrace, Yah taxpayers pay us, but you know what, The system is set up that way and that is why we still have a democracy after 200 plus years, dont like it leave the USA and never come back, If you think we dont need a military, Im sure you like to be told what to say how to think and how many kids you can have.
I proud to have go rid of a regime, who chops off heads, experements with chemicals, who gasses people, who diddnt allow the people to read, hang people or have access to the outside world. The only way for peace is to spread democracy however we can.
25% of the world is extremist and should be worried, but this third world *** will never win.
I been there twice and Im not in jail, most of us do the right thing. No one is perfect, and I do have a real job something that you would never be able to handle. You probably tried and they didnt let you in cause you suck or couldnt past the test to get in, or dont have something simple as a high school diploma.
Anyways, you should go to a dictatorship country and see what happens to you, your a__ will be back in the USA next flight out. Look at india right now.
Posted by jraf766
Yeah, a lot of countries have families like yours, mostly in Central America, folks that don''t know anything but the military after generations of brain washing. You should try and remember that you folks are the minority in America, so if YOU don''t like it, then leave, PULUEEEAAASSSEEEEE...........
Posted by jraf766
Isn''t that what Bush and folks like YOU have been wanting for the United States? I''ve never seen a more Fascist government than created by Bush and company. I assume that a lowlife like yourself believes that''s the best thing for the country. Domination of the majority by a minority, a lot like Iraq under Saddam.
As if they ever had a choice.....
Pact schmact. Har de har.
BYE BYE W.
All you apparently have to be capable of is reason to fit the bill.
My favorite Bush moment was when he was at a press gathering and pretended to be looking in the podium and under the chairs for WMD''s. It was supposed to be funny, but looked more like a confession.
-------------------------------------------
You are a true P.O.S.
By INVESTOR''S BUSINESS DAILY
Iraq:
What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn''t tell the
American public?
Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the
news that we''ve defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .
London''s Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most
spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once
numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions
of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed
against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and
unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare.
We can thank
President Bush''s surge strategy,
in which he bucked both Republican and
Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of
surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge
there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on
counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military
in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them
America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida''s loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar
Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from
there.
Was President Eisenhower who warned us against the military-industrial complex (who is behind the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else) anti-American?
Shodja Ziaian
Shodja Ziaian
-
by evian_ycnan
December 1, 2008 12:29 AM EST
- Yes I remember President Eisenhower when he warned us about the military-industrial complex. I was too young to fully appreciate what a military-industrial complex was. Now I know and it is evil. Eisenhower was right. It is the biggest threat to the United States and it is destroying our country.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 46 CommentsPosted by jgunther7 at 03:23 PM : Nov 28, 2008
--------------
Congratulations! Here`s your cookie. You have nailed the problem on the head. The military is no longer a means to the end of protecting the country... it IS the country; it is the ends.
More than 1/2 of gov''t expenditures on on the military. It has its own laws and its own courts. It is a system that is counter to the very principles it is trying to protect and it ALREADY runs the country.
You are correct, and you are too late.