U.S. Talks With Iraq Could Stretch Years

Next White House Likely To Inherit Difficult Negotiations On U.S. Troop Presence

(AP)  The next White House will most likely inherit the difficult negotiations over the long-term status of American military forces in Iraq as disputes linger over setting timelines for expected troop withdrawals, U.S. officials say.

U.S. negotiators once hoped to finalize the pact by the end of this month. But the goal has rapidly diminished to finding a stopgap measure by the end of the year.

It also appears increasingly likely that the final detailed agreement - spelling out everything from troop levels to taxes on the military - still could be years away, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the talks said this week.

The shrinking expectations by Washington reflect a toughening stance by the Iraqi side.

The government has not backed off demands such as a timeframe for combat troop withdrawals, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki senses no political benefit to nailing down a long-term deal in the waning months of the Bush administration.

The talks are essentially trying to shape the U.S. military's role after Iraq's forces take full command of security. The U.S. military has praised the pace of Iraqi training, but a complete turnover of security responsibilities could be years away.

For the moment, the main talks are on forging a "bridge" agreement that would give temporary legal cover to the American military presence after a U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

That's not coming anytime soon, said the U.S. officials, who spoke on condition on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. One official said the bargaining could "go down to the wire."

Al-Maliki, visiting Germany on Wednesday, said the negotiations are "still going on" regarding the pact, formally known at a Status of Forces Agreement, which defines the U.S. military's limits and obligations in a host country.

"They have reached advanced levels in regard to an agreement on its principles," he added.

That, however, is an apparent reference to the "bridge" document, which falls far short of the rule-by-rule clarity of a formal status agreement.

One of the U.S. officials said Washington hopes to retain the prime parts - the "filet mignon" - in a bridge pact. The official described them as dealing with rules covering the U.S. military's "jurisdiction and authority" and powers to detain Iraqis.

The official said that U.S. negotiators have not abandoned hope of eventually reaching a wide-ranging status of forces accord. But it could take years - and other measures, such as a diplomatic memorandum, might hold the issue in place for a long time, the official said.

That means the next president will likely decide how to proceed.

It's "kicking the can down to the next administration to negotiate a long-term agreement," said Colin Kahl, a professor of political studies at Georgetown University, in a Tuesday conference call hosted by the National Security Network, a Washington-based foreign policy group.

The Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, visited Baghdad earlier this week, and Iraq's government spokesman expressed hope of a U.S. combat troop withdrawal in 2010 - roughly the same 16-month timetable Obama has pledged. His Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has not endorsed target dates for troop pullouts.

This is one of the main roadblocks in the status of forces talks. Iraq wants to link the pact to a time window on removing American combat forces, but U.S. negotiators had not given ground. The White House last week offered some possible wiggle room by saying it was open to discussing a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.

The official also said nearly everything else was open to negotiations, including the number of American troops allowed to stay in the country and the number of bases. There are currently about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

"What's complicating the situation is whether what the Iraqis want is a time horizon or a timetable," said Kahl. "You've seen a number of conflicting statements from the White House and the government on this front."

[samsel3]

The Times of India August 2007 reported :

" Iran, Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products." Under the deal crude will be refined and sent back to Iraq.

Bush opposed this agreement and wanted the Iraqi Parliment to accept and sign a U.S. designed oil law that would result in huge profits for BIG OIL.

Iraqi oil workers and 63% of Iraqis polled are opposed to the Bush law and prefer a hands off Iraq oil policy.

[samsel3]

On September 14,2002 Rep. James McDermott at a Capitol Hill Briefing said that politics and oil, not fear that Iraq will use WMD are driving factors behind the presidents call for regime change. McDermott said there was an organized effort to squelch such discussions. "The political operatives in the white house have been very careful to spin it away from oil. Anytime anybody sees a connection they spin it the other way".

[samsel3]

On January 26, 1998 in a letter to the President the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.. Clinton refused their request.

George W. Bush took their agenda and got it done...........Mission Accomplished !

Coincidentaly, the invasion of Iraq took place after George Herbert Walker Bush''s meetings with the Saudis at Walker Point in Maine. The Saudis and Saddam were enemies in the oil business. Saddam was getting back at the Saudis after Desert storm by undercutting oil prices. The Saudis and Big Oil wanted to get the prices up so they took out their chief competitor....

[hologram5]

This whole Iraq fiasco was about oil. There is no denying this. Haliburton, and by proxy, Cheney, has made millions and will continue to make as much if not more while this current administration continues to lie the the Gov and the poor displaced people of Iraq about the point that when they feel they can take over then our troops will leave.

[neoconrcrazy]

THE BUSH WAR IN IRAQ

is just that, his war.

he started it on false pretenses and the American people were repeatedly duped.

the honorable thing to do is secure their borders, help them ward off secterian conflict, stablize a government - and leave.

[ramos937]

No problem. In 11/2008, we elect Obama. On 1/22/2008, President Obama orders the joint chiefs to prepare a plan for us to exit Iraq within 16 months starting 6/01/2009 and ending 12/31/2009. These talks are moot then.

[neoconrcrazy]

"This is one of the main roadblocks in the status of forces talks. Iraq wants to link the pact to a time window on removing American combat forces, but U.S. negotiators had not given ground. ""


but...i thought...as they stand up...we stand down, meaning, we leave...

oh, gosh, i forgot, we have to protect their oil, of course.

[neoconrcrazy]

let''s hope cheney is *********-bricks - the most important puzzle piece of his being in iraq is missing!!

STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT - meaning the US right of continuing military occupation of iraq - has been, thus far, and rightly, refused by the iraqis.

well D.ick, all those lies and subtrafuge, all those dead GI''s, and iraqis (over 500''000) and those glory plans of cornering the oil market using our military -

are for the moment, completely f.u.c.k.e.d. !

[oneworldusa]

With all the money we''ve spent on a war sold to the American public because of WMDs that didn''t exist, we may as well have annexed Iraq.

[inowutudont]

Gonna be tough to leave without getting those 100 year contract rights to the oil for Exxon.