BAGHDAD, July 23, 2008
U.S. Talks With Iraq Could Stretch Years
Next White House Likely To Inherit Difficult Negotiations On U.S. Troop Presence
-
In this July 9, 2008 file photo, U.S. Army soldiers from Charlie Battery, Fires Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment prepare to search a classroom as they occupy a school during Operation Fires Festung in Qubah, north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
-
Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive Iraq: 5 Years At War Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
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."
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From World
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
" 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.
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....
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.
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.
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. !
Posted by firststate at 12:01 AM : Jul 24, 2008
Al Maliki was NEVER elected by the Iraqi people. When we did not like the first prime minister that the Iraqis actually elected (because he would not do what we wanted) Bush told them to pick someone else, then told them, who to pick. Al Maliki was then installed by a cadre of other parties--NOT by the Iraqi people.
In short, Al Maliki has always been a handpicked puppet, who has had to juggle trying to appear independent and really being a collaborator to what we want. Al Maliki''s latest bid for us to leave is not because he really wants that---(local people are not kind to traitors or those who collaborate with the invading army) But Al Maliki sees the possible writing on the wall. Now, he has to juggle serving the outgoing masters of the Bush administration, save his own skin and power base and try to align himself with what he sees as the new game and game players in Washington.
He appears to have his money on Obama. To that end, he now is trying to appease and promote the agenda he thinks Obama would want.
When we leave, Al Maliki and all other Iraqi sell outs should be thrown to the Iraqi public--to do with them what they will.
If Iraq is sovereign--then they get to tell us when to leave.
If we are not conquerors but are helpers--then when they want us gone, we have to go.
If we truly are there to help--then when our people commit crimes or breach their laws they are subject to Iraqi laws.
Finally, if we are really not there for the oil and only came to free them, then we would stop trying to pressure them into agreements to grant us oil rights for the next 30 years.
Time for us to stop our lies and either admit to our imperialistic war and its goals, or pack up, shut up and go home.
- by sistatee-2009 July 24, 2008 1:54 AM EDT
- Great news! Now we can go on paying for years!
- Reply to this comment
See all 17 Comments