More disputed-points and the U.S. threats

Allawi gives us more disputed-points, noted that there are dif­fer­ences between the Eng­lish and the Ara­bic ver­sions with many trans­la­tion mis­takes, and he had this to say:

One of the points in the pact is to fight Al-Qaeda. This is a clear objec­tive, but other points such as fight­ing the out­laws — Who are they? What does this word means?

Another point, fight against the rem­nants of the for­mer regime, How to define the rem­nants of the for­mer regime?

I guess that Malikis gov­ern­ment right now in a high alert, as reported on iraqshabab say­ing that until this hour [late at night] there is meet­ing with polit­i­cal blocs in Tal­a­ba­nis pri­vate house adding:

Polit­i­cal blocs that oppose the secu­rity agree­ment is widen­ing its influ­ence in the meet­ing and press­ing towards total rejec­tion of the SOFA despite the pres­sure from the U.S. ambas­sador Ryan Crocker and the employ­ees of the Amer­i­can embassy.

Talabani’s attempt to break this rejec­tion by involv­ing mar­gin­al­ized polit­i­cal blocs are failed, the com­mon dis­cus­sion direc­tion is to post­pone SOFA nego­ti­a­tions after the U.S. pres­i­den­tial election.

Iraqi MP Al-Janabi con­firmed the U.S. pres­sure call­ing it “threats” saying:

The America-side noted that the non-adoption of the secu­rity pact will embar­rass the U.S. admin­is­tra­tion, and this push the UN to extend the Multi­na­tional forces pres­ence in Iraq.

The MP con­sid­ers this as semi-warning that Iraq will be offered to its ene­mies on a on a gold plate.

He added:

The Amer­i­cans always ask about who will fill the secu­rity vac­uum in Iraq? With­out the U.S. or the Iran­ian forces Saying:

This is an implicit threat to involve forces from neigh­bor­ing coun­tries to replace the U.S. pres­ence in Iraq.