Iraq strife shows up those scared of Sofa

For the past few days, the Iraqi capital has been witnessing a resurgence of suicide attacks, breaking the relative calm prevailing since last summer. At first glance, the renewed attacks may well look like an attempt by elements opposed to the new situation in Iraq to muscle their way back into the political centre stage.

A closer look, however, may reveal a more modest motive: to derail the new security agreement that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has signed with the United States. The Iraqi National Assembly (parliament) is scheduled to debate the draft before the "end of this month".

Opposition to the new pact, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) began to crumble last week when Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani gave his blessing to the draft approved by the Iraqi Cabinet.

Conflicting signals

Another sign that the opposition was in disarray came in the form of conflicting signals from Tehran. Ali Larijani, the hard-line Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, had called for "resistance and jihad" aimed at "throwing the Americans out of Iraq".

For his part, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, acting through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), had tried to bribe enough Iraqi legislators to block the passage of the agreement. However, by mid-week it had become clear that neither Larijani's vitriolic diatribes nor Ahmadinejad's gold had had the effect desired by Tehran.

Worse still, the Islamic Republic's Chief Justice Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroodi, himself a native of Iraq, came out with an appeal to "all men of goodwill" to support the agreement.

Dilemma

Before obtaining Iranian nationality in 1982, Shahroodi had been a leader of the Iraqi Shiite faction now headed by Abdul Aziz Hakim, the most vocal opponent of Sofa.

Hakim's group is now expected to either vote for the agreement or abstain. That would leave the groups led by the maverick Mullah Moqtada Al Sadr and former prime minister Ebrahim Al Jaafari, both close to Tehran, with a dilemma: oppose the agreement and face isolation or abstain.

With Sofa so obviously popular in Iraq, the Khomeinist leadership in Tehran has softened its opposition to it during the past few days.

As things stand now most Iraqi observers expect Sofa to pass with more than a two-thirds majority.

The agreement is good for Iraq for a number of reasons. It opens the door for officially ending sanctions imposed through 14 UN Security Council resolutions.

Sofa puts all foreign forces under the control of the Iraqi government and fixes a timetable for the withdrawal of the 135,000 US military personnel by the end of 2011.

Once Sofa is approved, Iraqis will negotiate similar accords with Britain and other members of the US-led coalition to arrange for the withdrawal of their troops.

The agreement gives Iraq three years during which it will hold two crucial sets of elections. The first, consisting of local government elections, is to be held on January 31, 2009, allowing a new generation of leaders formed in the post-Saddam era to secure a popular mandate. The second would consist of parliamentary elections to be held in 2010.

Coming into effect at the start of 2009, Sofa gives Iraq three years in which to complete building its new army. By the middle of 2009, the new Iraqi army should have replaced all foreign troops in urban areas while the remaining four of the 18 provinces will come under Iraqi government control.

New elections

The agreement is also good for the United States. It will deny America's various enemies - from Al Qaida to the Khomeinist regime in Tehran - an opportunity to claim that they forced the Americans out of Iraq. It also enables the US to consolidate its victory in Iraq by making sure that the new democratic institutions created since 2003 are safeguarded through new elections.

The US also benefits from the fact that by signing the Sofa it shows that it is not a fickle friend and that its commitment to allies is not cast aside as a result of a change at the White House. It took the US more than nine months to build up the force needed to liberate Iraq in 2003. Thus 36 months would be more than sufficient to ensure a phased withdrawal without the risking American lives with the "cut-and-run" policy proposed by some of George W. Bush's political enemies.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author based in Europe.

The author simply implies that Iraqis should accept Sofa no matter what because they have no choice. It is either they accept it and have a better life in a country under US influence and tyranny, or decline Sofa and prepare for isolation from US and its allies. The motives are clear. Sofa will get approval not because Iraqis wanted it but because they have been blackmailed. It seems that author wrote this comment to mislead people. Remember that US is the aggressor in this case. They had no right to occupy Iraq in the first place.
From A Reader
Abu Dhabi,UAE
Posted: November 26, 2008, 10:44

Amir Taheri said in his column: "It took US more than nine months to build up the force needed to liberate Iraq in 2003". I would like to know liberation from whom? Which law or norms of the world give US the right to invade a country and kill millions of civilians? Bringing total infrastructure to the ground and the worst torture in Abu Ghraib prison. Is this what he calls "liberation"?
Tajamal Hussain
Faisalabad,Pakistan
Posted: November 26, 2008, 10:10