Agreement On Table For Iraq Withdrawal

Plan Would See Troops Reductions Next June; Must Be Approved By Iraqi Leaders

(AP)  Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have completed a draft security agreement that would see American troops leave Iraqi cities as soon as June 30, Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

In Washington, a senior military official said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal approval by President Bush. It also requires final acceptance by Iraqi leaders, and some members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions.

Also completed is a companion draft document, known as a strategic framework agreement, spelling out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, the senior military official said. The official discussed the draft accords on condition that he not be identified by name because the deals have not been publicly announced and are not final.

In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date - most likely the end of 2011 - by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to assist Iraqi forces as needed.

U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.

It was not clear Wednesday how that has been settled in the draft security accord, which the two governments are referring to as a memorandum of understanding. The draft agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, which is in recess until early next month.

The senior U.S. military official said the draft is consistent with U.S. objectives, which include setting a "time horizon" rather than a firm date for the future withdrawal of American forces.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said talks with the Iraqis were ongoing and "we are trying to bring the agreement to a close. It is not done yet."

The draft agreement addresses issues that are key points of contention in the U.S. presidential election - in particular the future U.S. troop presence in Iraq. GOP hopeful Sen. John McCain is opposed to setting any timeline for withdrawals; his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, says he would bring all combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months.

An Iraqi official who was involved in the protracted negotiations said the latest draft was completed last week and sent to the two governments.

The official said a compromise had been worked out on the contentious issue of whether to provide U.S. troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, but he did not give details. In Washington, the senior military official said the draft agreement reflects the U.S. position that the United States must retain exclusive legal jurisdiction over its troops in Iraq.

While Iraqi negotiators signed off on the draft, another official close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the country's political leadership objected to parts of the text, including the immunity provision.

"There are different points of view," he said. "We have given ours. The other side has given theirs."

He would not elaborate and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

A third senior Iraqi official said al-Maliki himself had gone through the text personally and made notes with objections to some undisclosed points. He also spoke on condition of anonymity.

The security deal is to govern the status of the more than 140,000-strong U.S. military force after the U.N. Security Council mandate for its mission expires at the end of this year.

The Shiite-led government has been pressing for some sort of timeline for the departure of U.S. troops, saying that is essential to win legislators' approval.

The decision to refer the agreement to parliament followed demands by the country's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, that any formula to keep U.S. troops on Iraqi soil - even for a limited period - must have broad political support.

Bush long had refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, he and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.

Bush's shift to a broad timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on the security pact.

Talks were supposed to have been finished by the end of last month but differences over immunity and other issues dragged out the process.

[hangelle]

Wait a *** minute. Our government is committing us to an agreement with the Iraq government?! Can''t this wait until we have a competent adult in the White House?

[vastr-wcon]

.
"U.S. Approves"???

Does that mean just King George and the Court Jester Cheney have approved it?

Isn''t it convenient that the US no longer has to worry about a Congress mucking up anything the King wants!

/

[notblue]

if we had surrendered, cut and run as the Dems wanted over a YEAR AGO, this agreement, this SUCCESS, would not have been possible. The next thing will be watching how the loser left will attempt take credit for something thay tried to prevent and defeat!

[dubya_luvr]

if we had surrendered, cut and run as the Dems wanted over a YEAR AGO, this agreement, this SUCCESS, would not have been possible. The next thing will be watching how the loser left will attempt take credit for something thay tried to prevent and defeat!
Posted by notblue at 05:55 PM : Aug 20, 2008

It isn''t any kind of "success" yet. Americans agreed on it all by themselves. The Iraqis haven''t approved it yet, and they may re-open negotiations.

Read the article before you post Rush''s latest talking points.

[deacon20081]

I refuse to believe anything this Administration''s Talking Heads spout. Propaganda 101 is all they know.
The Iraqi people have yet to approve anything and they refused to give the administration any sort of gurantee that troops who murder civilians will not be prosecuted in the past. More of the same garbage for the elections.

[kennedy7955]

if we had surrendered, cut and run as the Dems wanted over a YEAR AGO, this agreement, this SUCCESS, would not have been possible. The next thing will be watching how the loser left will attempt take credit for something thay tried to prevent and defeat! Posted by notblue"

You talk about the failure that would have occurred if the USA had pulled out a year ago. Well look at what would likely have happened if we had not gone to war at all. Gas would be $1.30 a gallon, the US government would be in debt far less than $9 trill, George Bush would likely have been much more popular (a good thing for right-wingers like you). Ohhh, and there would be 4000 less dead Americans, several hundreds of thousands less dead Iraqis, a less powerful Iran. Afghanistan would be much better off. Russia would be less powerful, so would Chavez of Venezuela and our economy wouldn''t be in near as big a mess as it is...

This war isn''t over, it isn''t going to end well and you can "dream on" that there will be anything at the end of the war that could be called success for America.

[holmantx]

This will materially hurt Obama.

[kennedy7955]

Many who screeched "withdrawal" at the top of their lungs wanted Saddam to remain in power (Sen. Jay Rockefeller) or announced a US defeat (Sen. Harry Reid) or tried to produce the greatest possible insecurity in the Gulf region (Ahmedinejad). Since none of these things occurred, such people won''''t like withdrawal either. Posted by secundus2"

Here is a news flash for you. Saddam Hussein was the best friend the USA had in the Middle East. He went to war against Iran with our blessings, he kept Iran''s power limited. Hussein was also anti-religion, kept the Islamists in check, didn''t allow terrorists in his country and he could be bought.

History will show we attacked him because he was the easiest target. Is there any doubt the Iraqi people and America was better off with him than without him? No doubt at all.

[kennedy7955]

This will materially hurt Obama. Posted by holmantx"

I predict Obama will win by a landslide.

[jackmayoff2]

but what happen to mccians 100 years of war

[getcentered]

It is perfectly true that an Iraq withdrawal will require something very painful: admitting a colossal strategic mistake. This is the #1 unbearable disgrace for Republicans and all other core backers of the war and occupation. The #2 disgrace would be payment of reparations to Iraq through a UN or World Bank trust. #3 would be the outrage of the post-occupation Iraqi government resolving the oil issue on its own terms, possibly contracting French, Russian, and Chinese firms, while leaving US or UK firms on the sidelines.

Self-denial, vanity, fear to face the music, and greed are at play. It has nothing to do with US security. The fiasco has made us less secure, drained lives and money, and now we are the laughingstock of much of the world.

Don''t believe in polls? Well, how about the value of the US dollar on world exchanges?

Let Iraqis rule Iraq, whether by federation, partition, or unitary state. Any model we impose will crumble the day we leave, whether that occurs now or in 100 years. Iraq will not be pro-US, pro-Israel, or pro-anything we favor so long as we occupy them, or as long as we contrived to have privileged access to their oil.

Medieval Europeans wasted 250 years on their venture. Better to learn from them, plus from Britain''s troubles in Iraq in the 1920s onward, rather than repeat a futile imperial exercise.

The trillion plus we waste in Iraq could have done so much more for our security or economy if spent on just about anything else.

[wellhell3]

Posted by getcentered at 06:31 PM : Aug 20, 2008

Depends on whether you look at it as a mistake! Frankly most American''s don''t! Saddam Hussein and 20,000 plus terrorists are dead! Radical Islam committed a crime against this country! And now they know to do so again, will probably get us a nice parking lot!

Good job!

It only the screeching weenies, hate your country, idiots that deem it a mistake!

[wellhell3]

but what happen to mccians 100 years of war


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JackMayoff2 at

It was a lie perpetrated by the Obscamma campaign.

[eddom949]

''Screaming Weenies???'' That''s offensive. You need to take a drive down Screaming Eagles Highway just South of Santa Barbara. Thunder Chickens, that''s something else. I don''t necessarily understand the Military but they deserve our support and recognition for a job well done.

[colonieny]

Look at the terrible things the Russians have done in Georgia. That is a given, but where are the protests from the Liberals ? Why such silence ?
Did you know that villages have been emptied of men and young boys, many just lined up and shot in the head ?

[pvperson]

Good to see Bush learning from Obama and accepting a timeline. A withdrawal is 6 years late but better than never.

[oneamerican_]

Posted by getcentered at 06:31 PM : Aug 20, 2008

A self-deluded lunatic.

Sorry to pop your dream balloon, Bozo.

[pvperson]

"Did you know that villages have been emptied of men and young boys, many just lined up and shot in the head", Posted by colonieny

No, hum a few bars, maybe I''ll recognize it.

Do you beleive EVERYTHING you hear?

[rosieod4prez]

"Good to see Bush learning from Obama and accepting a timeline. A withdrawal is 6 years late but better than never. - Posted by PVperson


Uh-huh. Only Bozo Obama wanted to cut and run, no matter what condition the country was in.

The president is talking leaving because the Surge worked, and now it is time to consider leaving.




Of course now the democrates want their share of the glory.


Tell Obama to go visit the people in the hospitals - I don''t care if he thinks it is too political... Some of the people there are his supporters, and I don''t care that they will get comfort from him - they deserve comfort.

[pvperson]

RosieOD4Prez or should I say RosieHEDupurazz, we liberals were against the useless war in Iraq from the get go, you neo-con deadheads are just now coming to your senses. The surge wouldn''t have been needed if we hadn''t invaded, now would it? Congratulations on waking up. Oh, and keep the so called glory along with the utter waste and stupidity.

[iphyt4u]

10 billion American tax dollars spent in Iraq per month. I wonder if there are any Americans out there who could have used their very own money.George Bush- Worst president ever!

[boandco]

The United Sttqes has done very well off the Iraq oil Deal. Periferal profits should go to companies like Haliburtin or Blackwater, which mean they will be coming back to America anyway.

[rosieod4prez]

I LOVE it when liberals get frustrated.


They start to lie faster and faster. So now Hillary isn''t a liberal huh, PVperson ?

She voted for the war. With the exact same info the President had.


Did I mention Liberals can''t accept blame ? Oh, well, that would be redundant.


At least you aren''t trying to deny that the surge worked. There is hope for yo libs yet, but it ain''t in barry, that''s for sure.

[iphyt4u]

If liberals are the ones defending the U.S. Constitution...well then call me a liberal. Why would I want my government looking at my e-mail, invading the privacy of my home (sneek and peek), scanning what movies I rent, and what books I take from the library. According to the 2nd amendment I have the right to bear arms and defend myself against my own government. I''m a flag wavin'' liberal!

[joe_transit]

When we are done in Iraq will we rebuild our country? We can use a new government too. I''d like to see new schools and hospitals and roads in my town. When we are done training the Iragi''s can we train our people? We can use job''s in my town. That''s sure a lot of aid, can we have some aid too Mr President? My neighbors are hungry and sick too can you spend some of that money on us?

[joe_transit]

First McCain requests that Obama go to Iraq and overseas. Then Obama does and it turned out to be far more successful then McCain had anticipated. So McCain starts to whine and cry about something else insignificant. McCain picking on Obama just exposes McCain''s inferiority and mean spirited nature. What''s so wrong about having a president that is loved both in America and in the rest of the world. I have no problem with that. Europeans are not out enemy. McCain needs to be kept in a bamboo cage eating rat meat, that''s what he is best at.

[underdogus87]

UPDATE ON NAMES, HOMETOWNS, CAUSE OF DEATH AND PLACE OF DEATH FOR US TROOPS IN IRAQ

This is not easy to do, but the mainstream media doesn''t care anymore about how many US troops die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The following is a list of 18 American GIs killed in the war. Click on the names in BLUE and obtain more information.

Source: http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=4-2008

[luvienne]

Iraq and US drafting an agreement on withdrawal. Mccain what do you say now? How many Iraqi and US troops have been killed since the surge? One death means the surge did not do the job. CUT THE SPIN. OBAMA 08 Obama to our rescue.

[marcosis78]

Bush is just passing the burden to the next president and if they pull out too early, then the next president will look like the fool. Typical republican...I mean Bush tactics. His motto is, "I''m not a bad person. It''s just a lot of bad things were brought to me."

[benighse]

The only thing Dubya is still fighting over is his demand not to use the buzzword ---timeline---in the actaual withdrawal agreement, or it will make it look like he took OBAMA''s advice for a reasonable re-deployment of the troops and left Mccain flapping in the breeze on his silly statements to stay in Iraq and spend 12 billion a year for as many billions as he wants his lobbyists to spend. Here''s the important timeline: January 20, 2009--THE END OF AN ERROR!

[co11bang]

I am SICK and TIRED of hearing that the surge has worked! I am a two time Infantry war vet of Iraq. The truth is (and its not hard to verify) we have resorted to paying the militias and tribes to not fight! I would figure that the Iraqi gov could use some of their own surplus to buy the peace why should they when they have Bush and McCain throwing money at their feet.

I wish the "surge" worked but believe me...it doesn''t take a genius military tactitican to figure out that more troops are better. McCain declared victory in 03! Good job McCain you were wrong then and dishonest now! You spent two days in Iraq, I spent two YEARS...Now that the "surge worked" can we leave the phony war and focus on our nations real enemy (Taliban anyone?) and defeat them in Afghanistan.

[ontheleft]

''U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to a preliminary draft of an agreement on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq, a senior U.S. military official said.''

What propaganda. So in other words, they are still working on an agreement. Just like they have been for the last few months.

[whiskyrokkr]

co11bang
--------
Thank''s. It''s good to hear the truth from other vets. You hit the nail on the head.

[Stratmaster7]

According to Iraq spokesman, the agreement includes us removiing our troops from all cities by June 30th. Of course the Bush admin immediately jumped on that saying there was no "timeline", just a general time horizon coningent on conditions. It is hilarious. They still won;t say the word timeline. The Bush admin really thinks all of you are stupid.

well no sh*t. I have done project management work. Every timeline is contingent on conditions. That is why it is called a tinmeline. Otherwise it would be called a deadline... and oops... that is exactly what it appears the Iraqis are asking for.

Hmmm... who originally suggested a timeline and we were told he was an unpatriotic cut and run candidate from a party of appeasers? And guess who and which party is now agreeing to one?

[mrmazerati]

stratmaster2 is correct. Timelines and deadlines are two different things. One is subject to conditions, the other is not.

[dnsallday]

Yes, but there are a lot more wars coming. John McCain just agreed with a woman in his town hall meeting that the only way we could get Bin Laden or do any more fighting is with the draft.

McCain said he couldn''t disagree with any of it.

Somebody might want to ask the very mentally unstable John McCain how many more wars he plans on sending our children to fight.

[dnsallday]

The Department of Defense has just endorsed Obama''s plan to send 12000 more troops to Afghanistan.

[lucasnico]

wait.....this can''t happen! McCain wants to be in Iraq for another 100 years!

[pensacola88]

The Iraqis have substituted the coalition armed forces with their own citizens. Now, that they are loosing their own people to the insurgency, they are reasoning that the reason is the presence of the coalition forces and want to accelerate our departure.

Many insurgents adapted to the situation and learned to identify Marines, Soldiers, and avoid them to have a better chance of survival, but still attack Iraqis.

In Vietnam, the North overran the South in just days while our troops were making a hasty exodus.

In Korea, the North maintained their postions while US military still maintain a presence in the South.

In Iraq, the Iranians want to overrun Iraq and expel the coalition forces from the country. Iranians overthrew the Shah, who presided for 26 years from 1953-1979 and extended pro-western attitudes.

The commitment to resolve world wide terror means multinational military forces will have to occupy several places around the world and be exposed to hostilities.

The cost is enormous and keeps us in a constant state of fulltime engagement with use of force.

We recognized Israel in 1948. Sixty years later, we don''t exactly see Israelis living in peace and harmony with anyone. Their version of Homeland Security is extrmely rigid, and the Israeli citizens have fewer liberties than they had just a few years ago.

[cew23]

Obama is inexperienced and can be lead around by the nose...all the general in Afganistan had to do was tell him he needed 3 more batellians, and he got on the news and was the parrot for them. Both the nominies will have us in WW III.

[cew23]

I liked the fruit cake one.