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.

[cew23]

I liked the fruit cake one.

[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.

[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.

[lucasnico]

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

[dnsallday]

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

[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.

[mrmazerati]

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

[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?

[whiskyrokkr]

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

[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.