Iraq's prime minister is no longer content to be seen as an American stooge, writes Saif Nasrawi Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki made this week his boldest move yet to hinder US attempts o legalise the presence of its troops in Iraq beyond 31 December, when their UN mandate expires. Al-Maliki said Monday that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) currently being negotiated with Washington must include a firm withdrawal date and that it should be before the end of 2011. Speaking before a gathering of Shia tribal leaders in Baghdad, Al-Maliki stressed that despite "significant progress" in negotiations there are "still points of disagreement crucial to both sides". He added that, "there is an agreement between the two sides that there will be no foreign soldiers in Iraq after 2011" in a seeming rejection of any timetable contingent upon conditions on the ground. He also indicated that foreign troops stationed in the country cannot enjoy open-ended immunity, a prerequisite Washington deems vital for the presence of its soldiers. US officials quickly dismissed Al-Maliki's assertion that there was any agreement on a withdrawal deadline. "Any decisions on troops will be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. That has always been our position. It continues to be our position," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "There is no agreement until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue in Baghdad." The most recent draft of the US-Iraqi security agreement, details of which have been leaked to the press, suggests a conditional timeline of mid-2009 for US combat troops to be redeployed out of Iraqi cities and villages, and substantially reduced by the end of 2011 if there is progress on security. However, it keeps the possibility of maintaining US military advisors, special forces and air support after the withdrawal date. Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh toughened his country's position on Tuesday. Dabbagh told Al-Hurra Satellite Channel that Baghdad insists on a three-year term agreement that clearly specifies a withdrawal timeline for all US forces of Iraq, whether combatant or not. He added that "American forces would be only granted immunity inside their military camps and outposts not on Iraqi soil". Later on Tuesday the situation became even more dramatic when Al-Sharqiya, a private Iraqi satellite channel, reported that Al-Maliki had dissolved the Iraqi negotiating team and replaced it with a new one comprising several senior members of his staff. Quoting Iraqi sources, Al-Sharqiya said that the current head of the Iraqi negotiating team, Mohamed Al-Haj Hammoud, a former diplomat during Saddam Hussein's regime, would be substituted by Iraq's National Security Advisor Muwafaq Al-Rubaie, a Shia politician and close aide to the Iraqi premier. If true, the move reflects Al-Maliki's resolve to get his demands approved even if negotiations will take longer. Iraq's parliament has to approve whatever deal is drafted, and it is expected to take up the issue when it reconvenes on 9 September. Debating the draft agreement, given the huge divide within the parliament, will probably take months. Iraqi parliament members have already warned that any agreement cannot be endorsed without their approval and that it should fully respect Iraqi sovereignty. Ahmed Al-Alwani, a leading member in the Iraqi Accordance Front, the main Sunni bloc in parliament, said Tuesday any security agreement with the US must be ratified by parliament: "Parliament must approve any deal and ensure it contains no secret appendices." The position was echoed by Shia MPs. An Iraqi official in the ruling Shia coalition said Al-Maliki is under pressure from Shia political and religious forces not to accept any agreement on the grounds that the Iraqi police and army no longer need the Americans. "Many Shia leaders think the Iraqi forces are now able to crack down on any terrorist organisation, be it the Mahdi Army militias or the cells of Al-Qaeda, without the assistance of foreign forces," he told Al-Ahram Weekly. What is also at stake, it seems, is growing Shia scepticism about a potential American military role supporting Sunni groups that could jeopardise their current hegemony over Iraq. Shia leaders have recently become more critical of US-financed Awakening Councils, the nearly 103,000 tribal fighters of Sunni paramilitary groups which were created by the Americans last year as part of the surge. They fear that Washington might slip back into supporting Sunni Arabs to contain Iranian influence in Iraq and the Gulf. Jalalulddin Al-Saghier, a leading member of the Islamic Supreme Council, Iraq's largest Shia political party in parliament, warned on Tuesday that the Awakenings could turn into a destabilising force. "Some segments within the Awakenings are being increasingly infiltrated by Baathists and Al-Qaeda operatives. They must be challenged forcefully," he told Al-Sumariya television station. That is already happening, reported the Los Angeles Times, which says Al-Maliki's government "has embarked on what appears to be an effort to arrest, drive away or otherwise intimidate tens of thousands of Sunni security volunteers". The Times quoted unnamed US military commanders, intelligence officers, and diplomats suggesting that recent successful Iraqi military campaigns in Basra, Sadr City and Mosul had convinced the Shia led-government to shed its commitment to integrating Sunni fighters into Iraq's security forces.
