Iraqi PM Demands U.S. Pullout Timetable

Al-Maliki Says Security Pact With The U.S. Must Include "Specific Deadline"

(AP)  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dug in his heels Monday on the future of the U.S. military in Iraq, insisting that all foreign soldiers leave the country by a specific date in 2011 and rejecting legal immunity for American troops.

Despite the tough words, al-Maliki's aides insisted a compromise could be found on the two main stumbling blocks to an accord governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

Last week, U.S. and Iraqi officials said the two sides agreed tentatively to a schedule that includes a broad pullout of combat troops by the end of 2011 with the possibility that a residual U.S. force might stay behind to continue training and advising Iraqi security services.

But al-Maliki's remarks indicated his government was not satisfied with that arrangement and wants all foreign troops gone by the end of 2011.

That cast doubt on whether an agreement is near and suggested al-Maliki is playing to a domestic audience frustrated by the war and eager for an end to the foreign military presence.

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of Shiite tribal sheiks. He said an accord must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

Al-Maliki said the U.S. and Iraq had already agreed on a full withdrawal of all foreign troops by the end of 2011 — an interpretation that the White House challenged. Until then, the U.S. would not conduct military operations "without the approval" of the Iraqi government, al-Maliki said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said negotiations with the Iraqis were continuing and repeated the U.S. position that the withdrawal must be linked to conditions in Iraq — a clear difference with al-Maliki's interpretation of what had been agreed.

"Any decisions on troops will be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. That has always been our position and continues to be our position," Fratto said Monday in Crawford, Texas. "There is no agreement until there is an agreement signed."

Fratto said the U.S. was "optimistic that Iraq and the U.S. can reach a mutual agreement on flexible goals" and allow "Iraqi forces to provide security for a sovereign Iraq."

President Bush has long resisted a timetable for removing troops from Iraq, even under strong pressure from an American public distressed by U.S. deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003.

Last month, however, Bush reversed course and agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing troops home, based on Iraq's ability to provide for its own security. But the Iraqis insisted they want a specific schedule.

"We find this to be too vague," a close al-Maliki aide told The Associated Press on Monday. "We don't want the phrase 'time horizons.' We are not comfortable with that phrase," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

Another top al-Maliki aide, also speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason, said the Iraqi government had "stopped talking about the withdrawal of combat troops. We just talk about withdrawals," including trainers and logistics troops.

U.S. and Iraqi officials said last week they had agreed to remove American combat troops from Iraq's cities by next June, withdrawing to bases where they could be summoned if necessary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, but the plan appeared in line with a U.S. strategy to turn urban security over to Iraqi police.

During his Monday address, al-Maliki also suggested the question of legal immunity for U.S. military personnel or contractors remains a sticking point in the negotiations.

The draft agreement provides that private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law but the Americans are holding firm that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction. The U.S. has ruled out allowing American soldiers to face trial in Iraqi courts.

But al-Maliki said his country could not grant "open immunity" to Iraqis or foreigners because that would be tantamount to a violating the "sanctity of Iraqi blood." He did not elaborate.

One of the al-Maliki aides said he believed language could be found to overcome differences over the withdrawal schedule but immunity was a tougher issue to resolve.

U.S. officials in Washington have privately expressed frustration over the Iraqi stand in the negotiations, which were supposed to have ended by July 31. The agreement must be approved by Iraq's factious 275-member parliament, where opposition to a deal is strong.

It appeared al-Maliki was seeking to bolster his nationalist credentials ahead of provincial elections late this year and a national ballot in 2009.

Al-Maliki's Shiite allies face a strong challenge from followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, long an opponent of the U.S. presence. The prime minister's strong statements in support of an end to immunity and for a firm withdrawal timetable would make it difficult for him to accept an agreement that falls short of his public demands.

[tangula-2009]

It%u2019s time to let Iraqis to determine their own future by themselves, not the foreign forces %u201Cinvited%u201D by the Iraqi government. I am marveled by the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki%u2019s courage to say something that really mean to his country. The phrase of %u201Ctime horizons%u201D and the demand for open immunity to foreigners really are %u201Ctantamount to a violating the sanctity of Iraqi blood%u201D. Compared with what the U.S led coalition forces did in Iraq, Afghanistan and even in former Yugoslavia, the Russian%u2019s behavior in Georgia is nothing in terms of inducing civilian casualty and destruction the facility of a sovereignty nation. The mindsets of today%u2019s super-power leaders have actually changed little since the world war two and geopolitical interests is still their first concern, not the lives of ordinary people, not the real globalization culturally and economically and not the pressing environment issues which could threaten the existence of civilization. However, maybe there are still hopes. With the phasing out of leaders from older generation, the younger ones are coming to take the reins of their countries, from the current Australia president to the U.S. democratic presidential nominee: Sen. Obama, and to the new Russia leadership. The world%u2019s future is really count on them.

[omnibus66]

Any agreement to any fixed timetable would be damaging to McCain''s mantra.

Ain''t gonna happen until after the election.

[whiskyrokkr]

He want''s us gone then let''s go. What the He*l are we waiting for?

[kesac4650]

Bush said eraly on that the US would leave when requested to do so by the legitimate government of Iraq.

[ahrats]

Why does the present U.S. government want to stay in Iraq? The Iraqies want us out the U.S. people want us out but the Bush administaration want''s to stay, why? Iraq is sovern nation they now should take care of their own country itself, it''s like a child who has reached a certain point and the parent must let go but refuese too. I hope were out of there by the end of 2009. At least George will out in 2008, we hope, or will he decide to stay also, it''s hard to get rid of someone who thinks he''s a king.

[tapsettle]

From the time of the first Gulf War, the place should have been nuked from orbit! It''''s the only way to be sure!
-----
Posted by haoli25

People like you help prove there is a justifiable case for euthanasia, on the grounds that no air on this planet should be wasted to support a life form that has significantly less intelligence than a severely damaged amoeba.

[tapsettle]

Its a shame the RINOS and the Nutballs had to kill 2500 good Americans to finally be proven they are failures.
--------------
Posted by nextGenMan

Are you saying the rest that died were not good? Where do you get 2500 from?

[tapsettle]

Will Bush agree to a pullout? Personally I hope he keeps it in his pants.

[nextgenman]

Now Shrub and his Bumpkins have zero choice. Al Maliki is now demanding he get his failure asss out of Iraq. If he tries to ignore it the Al Maliki will unleash all Iraqs against the FailuRepublicans.

Its a shame the RINOS and the Nutballs had to kill 2500 good Americans to finally be proven they are failures.

[lambor59]

From the time of the first Gulf War, the place should have been nuked from orbit! It''''s the only way to be sure!
Posted by haoli25

....hey stupid d.i.c.k,,I hope that your family were there when your buddy nuke them,,,azz hole of the year.

[juless5]

I guess the Iraqis just don''''t understand; I mean all we did was bomb their country to shreds and then occupy what was left. They surely ought to be happy if we take the oil they have. After all, we only killed or contributed to the death of over 800,000 of their people. sent over three million out of their country as refugees. Where''s the gratitude? And if their precious antiquities were stolen because of us - well stuff happens.

Aren''t we their heroes? Where are the flowers. Did they really believe Bush when he said US troops would leave the moment they asked us to. How naive! We''re not done protecting them yet. And, after all, there could still be WMD''s we have to look for. As for Abu Graib, well we all make mistakes; don''t take is so hard.

[juless5]

I guess the Iraqis just don''t understand; I mean all we did was bomb their country to shreds and then occupy what was left. They surely ought to be happy if we take the oil they have. After all, we only killed or contributed to the death of over 800,000 of their people. sent over three million out of their country as refugees. Where''s the gratituce?

[haoli25]

From the time of the first Gulf War, the place should have been nuked from orbit! It''s the only way to be sure!

[lambor59]

Bush will not leave Iraq until the US treasure siphoning to his secret bank accounts are more than full.

[omded]

alohaone1,
What''s this you say about coming home "empty handed"? Haven''t we lost enough soldiers and spent enough money already? Let''s face it. Iraq was a huge waste. We lost the moment we invaded. It''s time to cut our losses and leave. I pitty the poor men and women who will continue to suffer these excessive deployments, lose their lives, health or body parts just so some American back in the States can believe "we didn''t come home empty handed". Obviously, you''re not part of this "we" who has to make the sacrifice and do the dirty, dangerous work. I care about our soldiers. I want them back home now!

[missingamerica]

[...] now things are safe , the Dems team up with these ungrateful Arabs to make sure we got nothing out of the whole effort [...]

Posted by alohaone1 at 11:27 PM : Aug 25, 2008

Gee, let me guess...you think that Iraq should hand over their oil for "our efforts"?

lolll...you in PNAC?

[missingamerica]

Ohhh...better watch that, al-Maliki.

Else, old Darth Cheney is gonna come visit you on the "Waterboard Express"...

[ajaxtheleast]

SO THIS IS IT ???

American President George W. Bush

left behind the legacy of illegally invading

a country one-twentieth the size of

America and totally subjected them to

accepting a Time Horizon agreement enabling

him to withdraw from combat.

[alphaa10-2009]

Somehow acutely embarrassed they inadvertently had invaded a sovereign state, Bush, Cheney and Rice were eager to paint a smiley face on al Maliki''s "pullout date" demand when they first heard it.

But the unmistakable Iraqi message is angry insistence from an occupied nation for US troops to leave.

The overwhelming proportion of Iraqis want us out, with no felt gratitude for their liberation from Saddam. As most observers see it, Iraqis regard US troops as invaders, not liberators.

The overwhelming proportion of Iraqis also want to retain control of Iraqi oil, and not give foreigners control over their oil fields.

That desire is completely understandable, given the history of Western meddling and oil politics. For example, the Shah of Iran was installed by our CIA, after BP was divested of its holdings by a democratically-elected government. .

How will McBush spin al Maliki''s non-negotiable demand? Ask for more time?

"Of course, the Iraqi PM meant, give or take a hundred years."

[alphaa10-2009]

alohaone1 said, "... the Dems is so selfish , they rather us either lose or go home empty handed in Iraq ... It must hurt them like hell that Iraq was stabilized and not turned into another Vietnam ...
---
Lose? How can America lose by tossing out Bush as the criminal behind the Iraq war-- Bush''s War? A "pre-emptive" invasion of a sovereign state is a violation of international law-- there was and is no credible security threat from Iraq (as Bush admitted in a later press conference).

Empty handed? What do you want-- real estate, or is it Iraqi oil? Cheney and Bush wanted the oil, and even before 911, Cheney schemed to gain control.

Iraq stabilized? People are blown to bits every day in Iraq. Only the peak level of violence has receded, but Cheney''s Army (the Sunni Awakening Councils) is a paid mercenary force that will be trouble in the near future, according to an Iraqi official close to al Maliki. They call that trouble a continuing civil war.

Iraq is not Vietnam, except that both were based on a massive campaign of presidential deceit. And the only thing you remember is we "lost"? Today, Vietnam is eager for closer relations with us, part of preserving the same national independence we claimed they needed 900,000 US troops to secure.

The Bush years of incompetence and corruption comprise the worst blot on US history, ever.