Posted on 06/04/2004 8:19:13 PM PDT by mrobison
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites)'s new prime minister made his first address to the nation Friday, saying a rapid U.S. withdrawal from the country would be a "major disaster" because Iraqis are not ready to handle their own security.
Iyad Allawi's call for improved Iraqi security and an end to guerrilla attacks came as unknown assailants attacked a U.S. Army patrol in Baghdad near the Shiite district of Sadr City, killing five U.S. soldiers and wounding five others.
Still, there were signs of hope, as an Iraqi official said the U.S. military and Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr agreed Friday to withdraw from areas around holy shrines south of Baghdad and turn over security to Iraqi police in a bid to end two months of fighting.
The televised speech by Allawi — a longtime exile with close ties to the CIA (news - web sites) and State Department but with little popular support in Iraq — was the first by an Iraqi head of government since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) fell a year ago.
For the past year, such addresses have come from L. Paul Bremer, the top official in the U.S. occupation authority — or from the president of the U.S.-picked Iraqi Governing Council, a position that rotated every month.
Allawi, appointed last week to head the interim government taking power on June 30, defended the continued presence of 138,000 U.S. troops and thousands of troops from other nations on Iraqi soil even after the handover of sovereignty.
"The targeting of the multinational forces under the leadership of the United States to force them to leave Iraq would inflict a major disaster on Iraq, especially before the completion of the building of security and military institutions," Allawi said.
Nevertheless, Allawi said that Iraq would never accept occupation and looked forward to having the U.N. Security Council adopt "a new resolution regarding the transfer of full sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government."
At the United Nations (news - web sites) on Friday, the United States and Britain again revised their Security Council resolution, this time giving Iraq's interim government the authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time. But other key council members still want the Iraqis to have final say in offensive military operations by U.S. and international troops who will remain after June 30.
The agreement to end fighting in the Shiite cities of Najaf and Kufa, in which U.S. forces pledged to stay out of sensitive areas, is broadly similar to the accord that ended the bloody, three-week Marine siege of Fallujah, a Sunni insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. The Marines struck a deal there to lift the siege and hand over security to an Iraqi force commanded by former officers from Saddam's army.
Local authorities in Najaf and Kufa hope the presence of more Iraqi police will defuse tensions and allow the agreement to take hold where an earlier deal with al-Sadr did not. Many Iraqi police deserted when al-Sadr launched his uprising two months ago, handing the streets over to his al-Mahdi Army.
Najaf Gov. Adnan al-Zurufi announced Friday's agreement, in which he said both sides agreed to withdraw from around the shrines in Najaf and Kufa. The Americans refuse to negotiate directly with al-Sadr and said they agreed to a request by al-Zurufi to reposition forces in the interest of peace.
But by late Friday, militiamen showed no intention of leaving the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf. They told The Associated Press that they were instructed only to put their weapons up — not to withdraw.
About 15 Iraqi police moved a half a mile from the shrine, but militia officials said they would not withdraw from the area without firm guarantees that American troops would not hunt them down.
The agreement would be a major step toward ending a two-month Shiite uprising in the south and parts of Baghdad.
Al-Sadr's rebellion began after the U.S.-led occupation authority closed his newspaper, arrested a key aide and announced a warrant for his arrest in the April 2003 murder of a moderate cleric in Najaf.
On May 27, Shiite leaders announced al-Sadr had agreed to remove his fighters from the streets and send home any militiamen who lived outside the Najaf and Kufa areas if the Americans pulled back too.
That announcement failed to stop the daily clashes between U.S. soldiers and militiamen, especially in Kufa. U.S. officials accused the militia of firing mortar shells at the U.S. base between the two cities.
On Friday, Col. Brian May, commander of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, said U.S. commanders agreed to stay away from "sensitive areas" — the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf and the Kufa mosque where al-Sadr preaches — because al-Zurufi assured them the militia had "been reduced to the point where the legitimate Iraqi security forces can move in to those very sensitive areas."
"It's an Iraqi solution to the problem," he said.
Despite the assurances, militiamen still manned the gates to the shrine and searched visitors well after an afternoon deadline passed for their departure.
Men in yellow shirts and badges identifying them as members of al-Sadr's militia dispersed crowds and urged people to go away. A banner outside al-Sadr's office read: "Al-Sadr doesn't compromise" and "We all resist."
Al-Sadr failed to mention the deal in a statement read on his behalf in the Kufa mosque. The statement denounced the interim Iraqi government and insisted on an elected leadership for Iraq.
"America has taken upon itself to appoint a prime minister and a president of the nation under the cover of the United Nations," al-Sadr's message said. "It has done that with impertinence and domination. The government must be elected, and I will never accept anything less than that."
The interim government will serve until national elections due by Jan. 31.
Adopting rules for those elections, a U.N. advisory team has decided on a system of proportional representation with the whole country as single electoral unit, U.N. elections chief Carina Perelli said Friday. To ensure women are represented in Iraq's future parliament, parties must place the name of a woman in every third place on the candidate list, she said.
In his address, Prime Minister Allawi said that security was a paramount challenge facing the new government and that it would work toward national unity after the divisions created by the war, tyranny and military occupation.
He pledged former Baathists could live with dignity if they had not committed any crimes.
Allawi, a Shiite Muslim, also expressed appreciation to the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who has given a tacit endorsement of the new government.
He also said the newly appointed president, Ghazi al-Yawer, a Sunni, would attend the coming Group of Eight meeting to improve the country's economy.
___
Associated Press reporter Mariam Fam contributed to this story from Najaf.
As long as they don't commit any new ones, most'll probably get a pass.
fyi
The liberals won't be too happy with this. It doesn't fit their spin.
As the article says, this guy isn't that popular in Iraq. Additionally, he's not in power as a result of direct election. This guy and the rest can say whatever they want. It falls on deaf Iraqi ears. We need direct election in September so that the elected leadership can praise our occupation.
Funny, articles in several other Iraqi newspapers disagree with this one;
Newspapers lead surge of optimism (Iraqis happy with new government)
The Times ^ | June 03, 2004 | From James Hider and Catherine Philp in Baghdad
IT WAS almost unprecedented in the short history of Iraq’s fledgeling free press. Instead of the usual death and mayhem, or vitriolic editorials attacking the occupation, there was a sudden surge of optimism yesterday.
“It’s a new dawn for Iraq,” proclaimed Al-Sabah al-Jadid, a liberal daily, referring to Tuesday’s appointment of a new interim Iraqi President and government.
“Welcome to the new Iraqi leadership,” declared Az-Zawa, the newspaper of the journalists’ union.
“The Iraqi people are happy with the choice of Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawer,” said the Mutamar newspaper, referring to the new President.
The Iraqis have been afraid to believe that they would actually have an Iraqi government or that they would ever have elections. Now, when they see that almost all the ministries have already been turned over, and they have the interim government they were told would happen, and they know that on June 30 the government is actually going to be turned over, they are now sure that the elections ARE going to take place.
They have been lied to for 35 years, they were afraid to believe. Now they are starting to understand that they CAN be free, but it's not going to be easy. They don't care, they are ready to fight.
I didn't say anything contrary to what you posted. I was just saying that it's unlikely that his speeches will mean much. It will mean plenty once it's from a directly-elected president.
I had to send this to an armchair general who needs a court martial.
What is so magic about September?
And why can't elected leadership praising our occupation wait until January?
Other than the cryptic Sistani who is popular in Iraq?
Bump!
Sooner the better and September would be as soon as it could really happen.
I don't know the answer to that question. I just hope the willingly choose a pro-US Iraqi. If they do that before our elections in November, Bush will be immeasurably helped. It will be a tangible sign that Bush was right. Bush would say, "See, I told you all that Iraq would end up great. Just listen to me and you won't be steered wrong." Now, it's just an assertion on his part.
Oops.
I just hope the[y] willingly choose a pro-US Iraqi...
Well, then I guess the Iraqis had better support our troops then, hadn't they?
A word of advice, it wouldn't hurt to be vocal enough that even the liberal media can't ignore how much you like the Americans.
I agree. Sooner is better. But I suspect the elections are scheduled for January rather than September simply because September isn't a feasible date -- logistically or politically (from the Iraqi standpoint).
Clearly, September elections would favor the Bush administration, politically. But I don't believe the administration would make such a decision based on anything other than what was best for the long-term health of the project.
BUMP for FREEDOM IN THE MIDEAST!
I dunno where you're getting your info, but you are completely incorrect about this man not being popular, no matter the spin this article is attempting to place on it.
Iraqis across the board are ecstatic about this interim president... of course, Daschle and co are saddened - is that your source?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
