Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End of Occupa
Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End of Occupation This Year
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland
AlterNet
Tuesday 05 June 2007
While Washington lawmakers play procedural games with an out-of-control executive branch, Iraqi legislators are working to bring an end to the occupation of their country.
While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -now representing a majority of the body - continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.
The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.
The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.
Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."
Without the cover of the UN mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peace-keepers - 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies - the UN mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The resolution was initiated when a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed a non-binding legislative petition two weeks ago that called on the Iraqi government to demand a withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.
While the issue of the Multinational Force's (MNF) mandate has been virtually ignored by the American media, it has been a point of fierce contention in Baghdad. Last fall, just after the mid-term elections in the U.S., a coalition of Iraqi nationalists in the parliament tried to attach conditions to the extension of the mandate.
Iraqi lawmaker Jabir Habib (a Shia closely aligned with the al-Sadrist Movement), said in an interview last fall that the Iraqi Assembly had been poised to vote on the issue: "We spent the last months discussing the conditions we wanted to add to the mandate," he said, "and the majority of the Parliament decided on three major conditions. These conditions included pulling the coalition forces out of the cities and transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqi government, giving Iraqis the right to recruit, train, equip, and command the Iraqi security forces, and requiring that the UN mandate expire and be reviewed every six months instead of every 12 months."
Lawmakers said that while they likely had enough support to require a timetable for withdrawal as a condition of the mandate's renewal last year, they were sidelined by al-Maliki when the Prime Minister sent a letter to the UN Security Council requesting an extension without consulting members of parliament. The move outraged lawmakers.
In a phone interview just after the extension, Hassan al-Shammari, a Shia Parliamentarian representing the al-Fadila party, said: "We had a closed session two days ago, and we were supposed to vote on the mandate in 10 days. I can not believe the mandate was just approved without our knowledge or input." Saleh al-Mutlaq, a secular Sunni lawmaker, was also shocked when we spoke with him last fall. "This is totally unexpected," he said. "It is another example of the Prime Minister dismissing the views of the parliament and monopolizing all power."
Today's resolution means that Maliki will not be able to make that claim this time around. Reached by phone today in Amman, Jordan following the vote, al-Mutlaq said: "the parliament is more powerful now - we can block the renewal of the UN mandate and demand to attach a timetable to it."
Iraq's government faces a crisis of legitimacy, in large part due to its refusal to demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces long favored by as many as four out of five Iraqis. According to a poll last year by the Project on International Policy Attitudes, 80 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. plans to maintain permanent military bases in the country and three out of four believe that if their government were to demand a timetable for withdrawal, Washington would ignore it (according to the poll's authors, that finding was a major driver of the significant support for attacking coalition troops found among all groups of Iraqis).
It is possible, even probable, that the Maliki regime will veto the resolution passed today. The White House's separatist allies in Baghdad have consistently found ways to bypass the assembly. Al Mutlaq said today that the nationalist bloc probably doesn't have the the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.
He warned, however, that the more the al-Maliki regime does to sideline the Iraqi parliament, the more Iraqis will be compelled to turn to violent resistance to the occupation. He said: "It will lead to many groups withdrawing from the political process and could only make things even worse."
The resolution passed today is only one part of the nationalists' effort to bring about a U.S. withdrawal. Nassar al Rubaie said of the measure's passage: "all of this is just our backup plan, but our other and more specific resolution setting a timetable will come soon." He promised that nationalists in parliament would force debate on a "clean" and binding resolution requiring occupation forces to withdrawal from the country in the immediate future. "We'll start the deliberations next week," he said, promising: "we have enough signatures for that one already."
-------------------------------------------
Raed Jarrar is Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. Joshua Holland is a Senior Writer with AlterNet.
Well this is a pickle, what will US-coalition/Iraqis or kurdish/miliitias... troops do in return?
Well Turkey has every right to do this. We have no right to tell Turkey she is not allowed to defend herself against terrorist raids; esp. after we invaded Iraq when it was of no threat to anyone.
Bush still doesn't listen to the experts.
Bush war adviser was skeptical on Iraq
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 23 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, picked by President Bush as his White House war adviser, said Wednesday he had been skeptical of Bush's decision to send thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq.
In a written response to questions by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lute confirmed news reports that he had voiced doubts during a White House-led policy review that led to Bush's Jan. 10 announcement that 21,500 more combat troops would go to Baghdad and Anbar province.
Interesting xingu thanks.
The invading forces must have known there was a danger of Iraq becoming Balkanised. But we were told troops would be welcomed with flowers, and pretty soon democracy would emerge. Another case of whilstling in the wind. It just suggests to me a new depth of cynicism. The coalition forces knew factional fighting civil war(s) were likely prompted by the invasion, but they went ahead anyway. They didnt care, despite the protestations about liberating the Iraqis from Saddam.
The whole Turkey thing is confusing. But your right it is not right for the US to have a blind eye to the PKK terrorists merely because the Kurds are friendly to the US.
Turkey denies major incursion into N.Iraq
Quote:ANKARA, June 6 (Reuters) - Turkey denied a report on Wednesday it had launched a major incursion into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels, but a military source said troops had conducted a limited raid across the mountainous border.
Rumours of an invasion have rattled financial markets amid growing Turkish anger over the activity of Turkish Kurdish rebels using the mountains of northern Iraq as a refuge.
Oil prices rose above $71 a barrel.
"The Turkey thing popped us up," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago.
The U.S. government has urged Ankara to be cautious, fearing conflict in what has been one of the most stable areas of Iraq.
"This cannot be called a cross-border operation, it is a limited operation," said the Turkish military source. He did not say how many troops were involved in the raid.
The source said it was not unusual for troops to make "hot pursuit" raids into Iraq, where an estimated 4,000 rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) are said to be hiding.
Earlier, the DEBKAfile Web site said 50,000 men had been dispatched as the "first wave" of an invading force.
Ankara described the report as "disinformation".
In Washington, U.S. Army Brigadier General Perry Wiggins of the Pentagon's joint staff told a news conference: "We have no indications or no reports that the Turks have conducted a cross-border operation into Iraq."
Jabar Yawir, deputy minister for Peshmerga Affairs in Kurdistan, said: "This afternoon 10 Turkish helicopters landed in a village in Mazouri, which is ... 3 km (2 miles) inside the Iraqi border. They landed with around 150 Turkish special forces."
"After two hours they left and there were no confrontations with the PKK," he told Reuters. He said the village was in a PKK-controlled area.
In Baghdad, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said there was no evidence of a military incursion.
Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment."
PKK military commander Bahouz Ardal said the reports had been planted to test public reaction to any such a move.
"These reports are a test balloon from the Turkish army ... to calm internal Turkish opinion, which is expecting a move against the PKK, and test the reaction of the United States, Iraq and Kurdish parties and the PKK," he said by telephone.
JITTERS
The Turkish army has said its big buildup of troops and tanks in its southeast region is a routine seasonal operation intended to combat PKK rebels inside Turkey or trying to enter.
Turkey's parliament, now in recess ahead of July general elections, would have to reconvene to authorise any serious military operation in Iraq.
Asked if the Foreign Ministry was readying documents for such a move, spokesman Levent Bilman told journalists, before the incursion reports: "At this time there is no work on such an authorisation, but Turkey is ready for anything at any time."
The reports sparked jitters among foreign investors who fear any Turkish military action could harm the country's booming economy and its ties with Washington, a NATO ally. The lira currency fell against the dollar. Turkish debt also suffered.
The head of the powerful General Staff, Yasar Buyukanit, called on the government in April to authorise an incursion to crush rebels. Some 30,000 people have been killed in the PKK's separatist campaign since it began in 1984.
Turkey's debate about how to tackle the PKK and northern Iraq is playing out against the backdrop of a stand-off between the Islamist-rooted government, seeking re-election, and a secular elite, including the army generals, keen to stop it.
Underlining the security problems in southeast Turkey, officials said two villagers died on Wednesday when they trod on a landmine laid by the PKK in Sirnak province. Separately, a PKK rebel was killed in a firefight with troops in Bitlis province.
On Monday, seven paramilitary police were killed in Tunceli province in eastern Turkey when rebels attacked their headquarters in the most deadly strike in about a year.
Steve 41oo wrote:Interesting xingu thanks.
The invading forces must have known there was a danger of Iraq becoming Balkanised. But we were told troops would be welcomed with flowers, and pretty soon democracy would emerge. Another case of whilstling in the wind. It just suggests to me a new depth of cynicism. The coalition forces knew factional fighting civil war(s) were likely prompted by the invasion, but they went ahead anyway. They didnt care, despite the protestations about liberating the Iraqis from Saddam.
I don't think Bush or the neocons even bothered to look at the consequences of their actions. They had such faith in our military power they couldn't conceive of a rabble of civilians causing any kind of sustained resistance.
These people are so screwed up that, in spite of what is happening in Iraq, some of them want to drop nukes on Iran! They think everything will be better after that.
It does not appear that Turkey did invade Iraq. Some of their forces briefly went into Iraq to chase some PKK guerillas but nothing more than that.
However this is a situation that is building up into a potential crisis. Bush is being a hypocrite by not allowing Turkey to invade Kurd territory to suppress the PKK. He's not making friends with the Turks any more than he is with Russia by insisting on building an unnecessary missile defense shield. Bush seems to go out of his way to make enemies.
xingu: Bush seems to go out of his way to make enemies.
That's the only thing Bush excels.
The thing with Turkey may be a great opportunity for us. We should immediately ask Turkey to take our place as the occupiers of Iraq. Turkey certainly has a bigger stake in what happens there than we do.
We got to find a way out of that hell hole.
speaking of what to do about TURKEY ... here is a photo of president ford from a great book called "no one's in charge any more" with candid photos from the eisenhower to carter years .
it's kept me laughing for many years
hbg
UK and US must quit Iraq quickly, says former ambassador
Tania Branigan and Rosie Lavan
Wednesday June 6, 2007
The Guardian
The British and American military presence in Iraq is worsening security across the region and should be withdrawn quickly, the UK's former ambassador to Washington warned yesterday.
Sir Christopher Meyer acknowledged that leaving Iraq would be "painful", but said the mission was not worth the death of one more serviceman. "I personally believe that the presence of American and British and coalition forces is making things worse, not only inside Iraq but the wider region around Iraq. The arguments against staying for any greater length of time themselves strengthen with every day that passes," Sir Christopher said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2096469,00.html
blueflame, Some people (very few in government) can see the solutions for Iraq, but Bush is not the person who listens to expert advise.
The biggest embassy being built in Baghdad tells me that Bush has long-term plans for our occupation.
U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 3,500
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 8 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - The four-year U.S. military death toll in Iraq passed 3,500 after a soldier was reported killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad. A British soldier was also shot to death Thursday in southern Iraq, as Western forces find themselves increasingly vulnerable under a new strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
So the war of revenge for 9/11 has now cost more American lives than 9/11. And achieved nothing. Except a higher body count among non-coalition type people. Sheik Osama bin Laden sits in his cave in Waziristan, or is it a palace in Lahore? Iraq has descended into chaos. Western investors wont go near the place until there is some sort of order, and every day it gets worse. The 'surge' is having mixed results (code: not working). The Muslims are on the warpath everywhere. Security services let it be known they are stretched to the limit dealing with Islamist plots of one form or another. Civil liberties are out of the window. Britain seeks a derogation from European Human Rights legislation to introduce internment for Muslims (= terrorist suspects). There was and probably still is a fine old army saying SNAFU. Situation Normal All F***** Up.
And we all know now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or even terrorism for that matter.
Reid was right when he said that we lost the war. The generals say that we can't win militarily, and we are doing nothing politically. The Iraqi government is essentially a powerless Shiite front organization, with almost no hope of succeeding. Thus, we have the question of why we stay.
