Inside Story - Iraq security pact - Nov 17 - Part 2

The security pact proposal put forward by the United States is being debated in the Iraqi parliament. The 'status of forces' agreement has been signed by the US ambassador to Iraq and the Iraqi foreign minister to express their support, and that of the Iraqi cabinet.

The agreement proposes that 150,000 US troops should remain in Iraq for the next three years, setting a timetable for withdrawal of 2011, although they could stay longer if both sides agree, but some Iraqis fear this could be the first step towards a permanent occupation.

Not all parties are happy with the terms and the Iraqi population remains divided, not least because the agreement provides for legal immunity for US forces in Iraq. If crimes including rape and murder are committed within US camps or within a mission they cannot be prosecuted under Iraqi law. The US says it has to protect its citizens, but critics say American soldiers can act with impunity.

Has the status of forces met Iraqi concerns and how will it work in practice?

Presenter Sohail Rahman is joined by Ali Al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, Sami Ramadani, a columnist and senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University, and Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Ending the Iraq War.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Al
• Jazeera
• Inside
• Story
• Sohail
• Rahman
• United
• States
• US
• Iraq
• security
• pact
• status
• of
• forces
• agreement

[mrshutter77]

You never objected tothe invasion, too many polls confirmed it, 70% of the americans peopel supported the invasion and 60% even thought it was still justfied even if there was no WMD, Americans were blood thirsty for this war, which iswhythey never like to look in to things like the Downign Steert Memo, becuase to look at that is too look at themselves. You object to being there now becuase the situation is un-winnable and the chances ofthe war coming to your door steps are very very real!

[dankeewolnir4042]

Obama did campaign on non-occupations.....but Bush campaigned on little gov...modest military...no nation building...and so on. We see how that played out. We gotta stop listening to these week words and listen to history and follow the money trail. Bama's not gonna change anything unless it is in the interest of money and the elite.

[ubuibiok]

No, we Object to Being there, their is no hope, never was, that a true Democracy was possible in IRAQ. Most Americans believe it was/is stupid to fight to support a fake democracy. Winning? There was never a hope of winning, this was a fight by the Fat Cats over Oil, a few in power, not all Americans.

Iraq's Religious beliefs, its Zero tolerance to any but Muslim teachings, Woman treated as property and denied their freedoms, there treatment denies 50% of the adults of equal representation.

[mrshutter77]

Well, if there war, the international media woudl ahve covered it, and there are no news pieces talking about mass anti-war protests in the United States, because the movement is really tiny and small, so small, that Mr. Obama feels he can sell you out like Clinton did by appointing War like bitch Hillary Clinton as his secratary of state. But I do agree that the movement is marginalized, but not in international media circles.

[mrshutter77]

It is a very very tiny minority! Compare that to Abortion protest, pro and con, or to Immigration protests, there really isn't a significant anti-war movement becausde there is no draft.

[pinkpuma1213]

and to add, this movement is not new its been strong in my eyes for at least three years now, surely there was an impetus in knowing that the situation was going well ---but you can blame the bush administration for deceiving people into believing that the Iraqis were so glad we were there to save them (in the beginning). you will be shocked to know the lack of real coverage that we get in the US. there is no civilian death toll in Iraq, as far as the average American knows. Our tv wont show us.

[pinkpuma1213]

mr. suhtter, that is not true. there is a growing movement amongst young people, especially in universities. I should know, friends of mine have been arrested in protest.

[mrshutter77]

Sorry for the Typo, what i mean to sayis that Most US americans are complaining becuase theyfeel theyare losing, not becuase they are opposed, they want to win, don1t for get that 70% supported theinvasion, becuase they wanted to win. And sadly I think most americans want to see if they can win first before withdrawing, especailly in the absense of a daft, this war is not hitting home to too many people. americans are very war like! Pacifists are a minority!

[revolutionarytruth]

no I think they're complaining because they like to be seen as pacificists and also because it's costing too much money

[mrshutter77]

What? Anti-war movement? There is no Anti-war movement in the United States, the US americans are not opposed to the war, they are just complaining becuase they feel they are losing?