BAGHDAD, Aug. 21, 2008
U.S., Iraq Eye Troop Exit By End Of 2011
Both Nations Agree On Timetable For U.S. Military Departure, But Deal Still Incomplete
-
-
A U.S. army soldier attached to Eagle Company, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment patrols a street on the outskirts of Baqouba, the capital of Iraq's Diyala province, some 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, Aug. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Marko Drobnjakovic)
-
U.S. soldiers stand guard as a displaced Iraqi family return to their home in the Jihad area of west Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
-
-
Interactive Iraq: 5 Years At War Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
-
Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although the Americans insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.
President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003. But that has softened in recent weeks.
The timing has major political importance in both Iraq and the United States.
The two contenders to replace Bush as commander in chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, spar almost daily over the future course of the war.
Obama wants all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed more urgently in Afghanistan. McCain says recent security improvements in Iraq show that decisions on the timing of further pullouts should be determined by circumstances on the ground rather than by prearranged timetables - a position the White House has vigorously held until recently.
The administration has inched toward the Iraqi view that setting at least a target date for withdrawal would make it politically palatable for Iraq's government to accept a substantial U.S. troop presence beyond this year.
The rationale for the pullout is that Iraqi security forces will be ready to stand on their own, although it remains possible that some U.S. military training role would continue. In Iraq, provincial elections are supposed to be held later this year, followed by national balloting in 2009.
In one key part of the draft agreement, private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but the American side held firm in its insistence that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction, officials said.
There is an additional sense of urgency to complete a deal because the U.N. Security Council resolution that sets the legal basis for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of this year.
Asked about withdrawal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday in Baghdad, "We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement." Her use of the term "aspirational" suggested that the timetables would be linked in some undisclosed way to the attainment of measurable progress in the security, political and perhaps economic fields.
Other U.S. officials said the deal includes agreement that by June 30, 2009, U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq's cities, set up elsewhere in the country in what the military calls an overwatch role - available to assist Iraqi security forces as needed, while continuing to train and advise Iraqi troops.
At a joint news conference, Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the two sides had accepted the draft agreement and would await a review by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top Iraqi leaders - some of whom oppose some parts of the deal - as well as the Iraqi parliament. The next step is consideration by al-Maliki and his executive council Friday.
In the Sadr City section of eastern Baghdad, more than 500 followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr held a rally Thursday evening to denounce the Rice visit and the proposed security arrangement. Marchers carried flags and al-Sadr's picture, chanting, "No to the agreement."
Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of the second-largest Sunni faction in parliament, issued a statement saying the Americans should not depend on any agreement signed with the Shiite-dominated government. He called on the government to put the deal to a popular referendum rather than simply submit it to parliament.
U.S. officials in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because the deal is not final, said Bush administration acceptance of the arrangements was not in doubt unless Iraqi leaders insisted on changes. The administration has pledged to inform Congress but not submit the agreement for formal approval.
In Baghdad, Rice met with Zebari, al-Maliki and other officials on a brief visit intended to push the Iraqis toward agreement.
Said Zebari: "This agreement determines the principal provisions, requirements to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission, of U.S. forces."
Bush has stood firmly behind al-Maliki, and the U.S. resisted pressure last year from its Sunni Arab allies elsewhere in the Middle East to dump the Shiite prime minister in favor of a more secular leader.
But al-Maliki has apparently taken a tough stand in the negotiations to refurbish his nationalist credentials and avoid the label of "America's man" ahead of coming elections.
The Shiite political establishment is also anxious to run the country without U.S. constraints, believing it has the right as leaders of Iraq's largest community, which had been marginalized politically since the modern Iraqi state was established following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.
Rice spoke optimistically of completing a deal but stressed that it still needed top-level Iraqi approval. She also said it was made possible by security improvements.
"I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger," she said.
Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."
A State Department transcript of Zebari's remarks said he added that Iran had been advised of that provision.
In other developments:
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 436 Comments
- How many houses do you own and how much do you make?
When a reporter asked John McCain how many houses he owns, he stumbled and said, "I think -- I''ll have my staff get to you." hmmm...I don''t seem to have the problem. Do you?
If you''re like the millions of people who are struggling to keep up with their mortgage, you might have a different perspective.
Not only does John McCain have trouble keeping track of all his houses, he looks at record gas prices and a crippling foreclosure crisis and thinks the economy is fundamentally "strong." Really I have to move to Arizona, or California or wherever it is that he is living in one of the 7 homes he owns.
And last weekend he said anyone making less than $5 million a year isn''t rich. I well I can figure that...but then this mean I really, really, really super poor (as I thought) cause I can''t even get near $5 million.
This is the side of John McCain his campaign wants to hide. - Reply to this comment
- By the way, I forgot to mention another headline where JohnnyBoy McSame got it wrong...the Fed just said "It''s the economy Stupid". And it ain''t looking good for the rest of America anytime soon. To quote "This is the worst economy we have ever witnessed". Gee John you''re just having a really bad hair day today. Have you got anything right yet?
- Reply to this comment
- Just an all round bad day for John McSame and the gang...first headlines "A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading" now Iraq says out by 2011 and Bush agrees. Sorry JohnnyBoy no off-shoring drilling and no 100 year war! What''s an old man to do? Your bag of tricks is just running out of magic. Guess it is time to put Rove and Rush back in the closet and get a life...or maybe a job so you can feel our pain!
- Reply to this comment
- The Repubs. will Pull out of Washington by January of 2009.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by Hwy71So
McCain quote:
"We will be in Iraq for another 100 yrs."
Obama quote:
"We will bring our troops home in 16 months."
Now the Repubs are pushing for:
"troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by next June on the way to broader withdrawal from the long and costly war by 2011."
Once again McCain is out of touch.
While the Repubs. have committed the biggest "flip/flop" in the history of the world! - Reply to this comment
- bald25, the greatest oppressor, Sadam has been executed by his owm poeple for genocide.
Posted by notblue at 01:54 PM : Aug 22, 2008
With the help of George Bush--who thought it more important to liberate Iraq than go after the people responsible for murdering over 3000 Americans on 911---Just where the heII is Bin Laden now??? Not 6 ft under with Saddam!!! - Reply to this comment
- The Terrorists have warned us that the stated objective of the war is to bring America to economic ruin.
The Republicans have been achieving this objective on their own very effectively. - Reply to this comment
- You libs are smokin crack!
Of course its starting to wind down. Nevertheless, if it took 100 years, I think it needed to be done and to be done to completion, not just jump and run like the Dems wanted to do. - Reply to this comment
- Now we''re playing international "whack a Mole."
We put more troops in Iraq
The Terrorists move to Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Since the "Surge" began Terror attacks up 40% in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has become a debacle.
The Russians have invaded Georgia.
Why? Because (even before the "Surge") our Military was spread to thin. - Reply to this comment
- david, waht you state can be translated into a fight we must win, you are right the Islamic extremists are not going away. How will your plan of cutting and running from the fight help to create peace and security?
Posted by notblue
What will we win, if we win? - Reply to this comment
- david, waht you state can be translated into a fight we must win, you are right the Islamic extremists are not going away. How will your plan of cutting and running from the fight help to create peace and security?
Posted by notblue
1. Read the title of the article, the Repubs. are "cutting and Running."
2. Two years of lies led to the Iraq War (935 lies.)
3. Since the "surge" began terror attacks in Afghanistan have increased by 40%, Pakistan has fallen into the hands of Terror, and the Russians have invaded Georgia. This because our Military (even before the surge) was stretched too thin. In other words the Repubs. failed policies go from bad to worse. - Reply to this comment
- nfynvk74769 - check with Ted Stevens he has another.
- Reply to this comment
- johnpatrick9 - I agree with the general downward spiral of the US diplomatically for the last 7 or so years.
- Reply to this comment
- Notblue 1354
Removing one oppressor (Saddam) and replacing him with another (Bush), does that make it right? - Reply to this comment
- Notblue 1354 hours
Saddam, the Shaw of Iran and the guy from the Philippines (Marcos), were all oppressors supported by the good old USA. When these oppressors pulled from the US, they became BAD Oppressors. But as long as we pulled their strings, we looked the other way. This is what happened to Saddam, he pulled away from the great Oppressor, the good old USA. And we hung him. - Reply to this comment
- President Bush signed off on a deal with Pakistan. The treaty gave al Qaeda room to maneuver in Waziristan. Does that rank in this list of disasters that have happened since 9/11?
- Reply to this comment
- david, waht you state can be translated into a fight we must win, you are right the Islamic extremists are not going away. How will your plan of cutting and running from the fight help to create peace and security?
bald25, the greatest oppressor, Sadam has been executed by his owm poeple for genocide. - Reply to this comment
- Notblue 1329 Hours
How can the Iraqs have freedom or be free when the oppressor is still there? Explain. - Reply to this comment
- david, waht would have the outcome in Iraq have been if we would have surrendered, cut and run as Harry reid had suggested almopst two years ago? Of course the enemy would have taken over and the risk to America would have been greater. Now that the Iraqis were given a chance to take control and not lose to extremism we have a democracy and an allie in the middle east a very different, positve outcome compared to the outcome the lose at all costs dems would have created, so stuff your false propoghanda and join the world of reality. Why is it sooo important for you Bush haters to acknowledge the truth or any good news? Hateful politics with total disregard for the 12 million Iraqis the voted for FREEDOM!
Posted by notblue
Two years of lies led to the Iraq War. What would have outcome have been if the Repubs had not told 935 lies leading us into this war of choice?
Since the "surge" began insurgent attacks in Afghanistan have increased by over 40%, Pakistan is a complete debacle and Russia has invaded Georgia. The fact is that the "surge" is unsustainable. In moving the extra troops to Iraq it has cost us priceless assets in other regions.
Bottom line this is another example of failed Republican policy. - Reply to this comment
- nancynaive= typical elitist ******/screaming child leftwinger/67 percenter. Good luck with that!
- Reply to this comment
How gold pays for 
