Tweet
Nouri al-Maliki sent hints that he actually wants a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I was… skeptical. Now the permanent national-security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie (has anyone else noticed he’s been in his position for the last three premiers? Who’s paying his salary, huh?), says something definitive:
"There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control," Rubaie said. "We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops’ withdrawal from Iraq."
What in the world? Could this actually be the end of the permanent-occupation deal? Who put something in my drink?
I don’t know. We’ll see. Stuff like this has a tendency to get walked back. But the Washington Post reports that Rubaie, a Shiite, issued his comment after meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shiite religious authority in Iraq. And according to this Iranian news story, Sistani has had it up to here with Maliki’s flirtations with a permanent occupation:
The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite leader in Iraq on Tuesday rejected any security agreement with US, stressing such deal will affect the country’s sovereignty.
In a meeting with Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie who was briefing al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government’s security efforts, and the talks on US security deal, Ayatollah said his country will not accept such a security deal which is seeking to justify the illegal presence of US military troops in the war-torn country.
Ayatollah Sistani’s statements came after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that Iraq was seeking a timetable for withdrawal of US troops as part of its negotiations with Washington on a controversial US security pact that guarantees long-term presence of the US troops in Iraq after the UN’s mandate expires at the end of 2008.
The usual caveats apply about the veracity of Iranian news organizations, but at least this makes sense.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Dick Cheney gon’ do dat Mowaffaq.
I hope some largeish group with lots of guns has Sistani’s back.
The really interesting question is what Bush/Cheney would say/do if the Iraqi government and parliament say no deal without a firm timetable for withdrawal and complete Iraqi sovereignty. Rubber, meet road. This would lead to some considerable shakeup’s in US campaign posturing before Nov. Would the GOP actually take the position that we will stay on the US’s terms, and continue an occupation with no agreement after the UN authorization expires at the end of the year? Or would Cheney go back to the UN for an extension and perhaps face a denial based on lack of Iraqi agreement. [rubs hands together].
One could almost have deja vu in advance of neo-con heads popping like popcorn.
It’s too good to be true in all likelihood, but a boy can dream.
I don’t think he’s like that Shahwani guy the U.S. imposed as head of
ourthe Iraqi intelligence agency. If anything, he’s the reverse — I’ve seen him described as the Iraqi politician closest to Sistani.I’d also dissent from your take that “Sistani has had it up to here with Maliki’s flirtations with a permanent occupation.” Your interpretation seems to be that Maliki has to placate Sistani, but ultimately will obey Bush. I think the truth is (and always has been) exactly the opposite.
You’re forgetting that “one Iraqi on the gate” example from a month or so back.
There’s a ref from 2006 talking about 48 military bases being under Iraqi control. You’re thinking there’s zero, or that control equates to the presence of US forces.