I'm putting my money on the ultraviolence.

No doubt if things start getting out of hand, the US and Maliki will simply suspend Parliament and keep blowing shit up. We're not building those huge bases and extra prisons over there just to get up and leave them behind because of some pantywaist UN mandate.

Eventually, of course, we'll get the helicopters on the rooftops scenes again, but there's a lot of good death and destruction left to be doing before then.

Call me crazy but I think getting out is really the way to go.

Are you sure this is a meaningful development? Because it sounds to me like a lot of Iraqi-domestic posturing. What else are Iraqi politicians going to do? Remain silent regarding the occupiers forever? When's the best time to speak out against the U.S. then between administrations?

Politics is never conclusive; when you say this is (if true) an extremely important development, I imagine a year from now we'll have no treaty in place yet troops will still be present in some cosmetically-insignificant different way. Even in hindsight we'll look back at this moment and wonder: "That last car bomb - was that Sistani's Will manifested? This minor uptick/downtick in violence - is that because we have no charter with the UN to occupy Iraq, or is it seasonal?"

I don't know. I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation, but it's kinda hard given how absurd everything's been up to this point.

i guess we're fixin to discover just how 'temporary' those temporary bases in Iraq really are.

ya think they built 'em all modular so they could be struck quick for mobility?

nah, me neither...

The Green Zone was Saddam's castle and Iraq his titled lands, my guess is he's still collecting the rent, even in hell.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547198,00.html

Sorry to break the flow, but has anyone else been seeing much reporting of this in US news?

WE GOT JETS, so if Sistani is serious, and no doubt he is a serious person, AND this is what he says, then its going to be one long bloody slugfest (as if it hasn't been already), 'cause WE got jets. Now if ur Deadeye Dick, then this is GOOD news, as for every dead Iraqi WE are one step closer to getting OUR hands on all that OIL. (and THAT'S what WE PAY Ole Deadeye for)

Meanwhile, look who says the Senate should have to ratify any such agreement:

"House Defies White House Veto Threat, Passes Defense Authorization Bill
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff

The House passed a $601.4 billion defense authorization bill Thursday, brushing aside a White House threat to veto the massive bill.

Before passing the bill (HR 5658) by a vote of 384-23, lawmakers rejected Bush administration objections to adopt two amendments that are intended to set the ground rules for an agreement the administration is negotiating with Iraq to provide a legal framework for a continued U.S. troop presence after this year.
. . . . [Here's one of them:]
The House also adopted, 234-183, an amendment by Barbara Lee , D-Calif., to require congressional authorization for any agreement obligating the U.S. military to defend Iraq."

I don't know. I think the Bush administration understands that nothing can dislodge them from Iraq.

I have a couple of colleagues from Iraq and from everything they have told me, the US should take Al-Sistani very, very seriously. Al-Sadr is a minor bit player compared to Al-Sistani who commands the loyalty of the vast majority of Shiite Iraqis. Al-Maliki cannot ignore these fatwas and retain any relevance. Al-Sistani has been steadfastly against retaliatory killings following Sunni attacks on Shiites and has been, until now, reluctant to saction attacks on US troops but he has also refused to have any interaction with US authorities. He is truly a force to be reckoned with. I have no doubt the worst possible course of action would be to target Al-Sistani. It would be (roughly) like killing the Pope.

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about the relationship between al-Sistani and al-Sadr. Actually, al-Sistani holds a 'position' of authority in the Muslim world similar to what the Pope commands in the world of Catholics. While Islam doesn't have an official pope - al-Sistani is about as close as you can come. al-Sistani is so powerful that the first time al-Sadr commenced a violent uprising, al-Sistani told him to stop fighting and al-Sadr did. This is almost unheard of in the Arab world - al-Sadr's unilateral abandonment of the battlefield would be a death-blow to the pride and honor almost unbearable, and if it had been delivered by anyone other than al-Sistani, a suicide would have shortly followed (al-Sadr's).
I believe one of the reasons al-Sistani has refused to deal with the US is that he rightly does not want to even give anyone the slightest appearance of possibly consorting/collaborating with our illegal occupation. This is necessary for him to maintain his position as the most holy grand ayatollah - and for him to have any credibility with his people, including al-Sadr, after the US leaves Iraq.
Therefore, I am hopeful that this edict against the basing agreement is true, because al-Maliki would not dare go against al-Sistani. It is worrisome that al-Sistani is now giving the go-ahead to attack US troops - but I also believe that message is clear as well. He has given the US time to complete it's supposed mission. That time is now over and it's past time to leave. And we had better do it, because if al-Sistani says it's okay to kill US Troops, every person with a gun will rise up to obey the fatwa and we ain't seen nothin' yet like the entire population of Iraq shooting at us!
jimpinin is correct - we also had better not target al-Sistani because it truly would be like killing the Pope. Then we would not just have the Iraqis mad at us, the entire 1.2 or so billion Muslims the world over would be demanding retribution and revenge.

I wonder if the U.S. will raze these huge bases when it's forced to abandon them, or if it will leave the empty Burger Kings and Denny's' for the wonderment of the Iraqi survivors.

Gen. Petraeus' uniform is only the most visible manifestation of the US Army's over-the-top obsession with bling. We in the Air Force have always been more restrained, although there has been some "bling creep" in recent decades.

Re. Powell's reason for not running for president, surely there was some lurking irony. If not, this was far from the most important reason he declined to run.