U.S. Warns Iraq To Accept Security Deal
White House Predicts "Real Consequences" If Iraqis Reject Troop Agreement
-
A U.S soldier of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and Iraqi police officers patrol in Fadhiliah, eastern Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 22, 2008. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
-
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.
Without a deal, the United States could be forced to end its military operations.
The White House said Iraqi security forces are incapable of keeping the peace without U.S. troops, raising the specter of reversals in recent security and political gains if the proposed security deal is not approved by the time the current legal basis for U.S. military operations expires Dec. 31.
"There will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "And the Iraqis know that. And so, we're confident that they'll be able to recognize this. And if they don't, there will be real consequences, if Americans aren't able to operate there."
At the Pentagon, press secretary Geoff Morrell said the U.S. fallback position is to extend the U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing U.S.-led coalition operations in Iraq, but he emphasized that the Bush administration's preference is to complete a bilateral U.S.-Iraqi agreement.
"Our focus is entirely on trying to get this deal done," Morrell said.
Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not had direct contacts with Iraqi officials since Baghdad announced earlier this week that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki determined that unspecified changes to the draft accord are required. The spokesman said it was not clear what changes the Iraqis are demanding.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the draft agreement "both protects our troops and the Iraqi sovereignty" and would stand as it was negotiated.
"It is a good agreement," Rice told reporters traveling with her Wednesday to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where she was to meet her Mexican counterpart, Patricia Espinosa.
Rice would not say whether she opposes the Iraqi Cabinet petition to reopen negotiations.
"I understand the Iraqis themselves recognize they are not ready to operate without the coalition forces yet," Rice said.
At the State Department, spokesman Robert Wood said time was running short.
"It's time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take a decision," Wood said. He insisted that the administration had yet to hear anything official from the Iraqi government on its position or its suggestions for possible amendments.

The U.S. has 155,000 troops in Iraq. In addition to conducting combat operations against a weakened insurgency and hunting down al Qaeda fighters, the U.S. military is training Iraqi security forces, assisting in the resettlement of displaced persons, coordinating efforts to restore and improve basic services like water and sewage, and providing personal security for senior Iraqi government officials.
The Iraqi government on Wednesday decried what it called the "not welcomed" statements from Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who cautioned the Iraqis of unwelcome consequences in the event that the security pact is not signed by the end of the year.
Mullen, who was traveling in Europe, told reporters on Tuesday that time was running out for the Iraqis to sign the deal and that he was concerned the Iraqis may not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation.
"These statements are not welcomed in Iraq," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. "All Iraqis realize the volume of their responsibilities and they appreciate the importance of signing the pact or not in the way they deem it proper."
All Iraqis realize the volume of their responsibilities and they appreciate the importance of signing the pact or not in the way they deem it proper.
Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq spokesmanMorrell said the Iraqis should not take Mullen's comments as an attempt to force anything on them.
"That couldn't be further from the truth," Morrell said. "We are not trying to pressure the Iraqis or force the Iraqis into signing anything they don't wish to sign."
In subsequent remarks Wednesday, Mullen said he believes the Iraqis are not ready to provide their own defense, according to a Pentagon account of comments to reporters traveling with him.
Mullen also made clear in those remarks that if there is no U.S.-Iraqi deal and the U.N. mandate runs out on Dec. 31 without being extended by the Security Council, then all U.S. military operations would have to cease. Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials have said repeatedly that the security situation in Iraq is too fragile to justify a full U.S. withdrawal anytime soon.
The proposed security pact calls for all U.S. combat forces to be removed from Iraqi cities by June 2009 and for all forces to leave the country by the end of 2011, unless both sides agree to an extension.
In a satellite video-teleconference from Baghdad, an Army commander told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday that his understanding is that by June 2009 U.S. troops would not be based inside cities but would be allowed to operate as trainers and advisers attached to Iraqi military units.
"We will have embedded teams," Col. William Hickman, commander of the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said. "And those teams will remain with Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in execution of our mission. So that is how we're seeing our situation here - to continue to focus on the training of the Iraqi security forces so that they are prepared as we go into spring and summer of next year."
Hickman's brigade operates in western Baghdad.
Morrell announced that on Thursday the Iraqis would regain security responsibilities for Babil province, making it the 12th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be restored to Iraqi control.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- If they offered Clinton a Blow**b he would have said "hell yeah".
- Reply to this comment
- Iraqi''s are acting like primatives. We should stop wasteing money and lives and turn the whole place into a parking lot, or a gas station.
- Reply to this comment
- The Times of India August 2007 reported : " 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.
On January 26, 1998 in a letter to the President the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.. Clinton refused their request. - Reply to this comment
- The PNAC s goal has always been world market domination. In concert with Big Oil the Godfather of the PNAC George HW Bush held meetings with the Saudis at Walker Point in Maine prior to the Iraq invasion.
Iraq with the Russians were the Saudis main competition in global Oil markets. 2.5 million barrels a day of Iraqi crude was sold cheap in world markets angering the Saudis and Big Oil. Iraq was one of seven countries on the administrations hit list. Taking out Iraq did take out the competition enabling Big Oil and the Saudis free reign to drive oil prices up.
The Russians are not to blame. Blame the PNAC.......
Paul Wolfowitz,Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, George Bush, Richard Cheney, Eliot Cohen. Zalmay Khalilzad, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, Pete Rodman, Henry S Rowen, Dan Quale, William J.Bennett, Jeb Bush, they are all members of the PNAC Project for a New American Century. - Reply to this comment
- "The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact."
Ruh roh...that gives us about a week before Cheney announces that al-Maliki has been cooperating with Iran to fund purchases of yellow-cake uranium by al-Qaeda forces intent on blowing up Middle Eastern oil fields and destroying the American way of life.
What the Republicans haven''t already destroyed, anyway. - Reply to this comment
- The NAZI Fascist Bush Crime Regime
Thinks it can Impose That :
NAZI FASCIST IDEOLOGY of
NO GOD - - - - Master - Slave Mentality
Onto Any Country in The World
The NAZI Fascist Bush Crime Regime
Can not Get it Through Their Heads
They Have Been - EXPOSED
For WHO they Really Are and
WHAT they Really Are ! ! !
EMISSARIES of That -
That is :
DESTROYERS - of - WORLDS - Reply to this comment
- One questions
What the H--l kind of peace is the U S keeping in Iraq or Afgan ?
Just leave and they will see it will be just like Vietnam.
A peaceful and prosperous country in spite of all the killing and destruction done by the U S. - Reply to this comment
- AMERICA THREATENING A COUNTRY (iraq) AGAIN!!!
Haven''t we destroyed that country enough already?? - Reply to this comment
- The people of Iraq just want us out of their country. George Bush didn''t seem to need legal permission to invade their country. Why does he feel the need to obtain legal permission to extend his stay there? The longer we stay, the more deaths we are responsible for.
Perhaps Bush believes that there are some corrupt Iraqi government officials influencing their decision. Oh, no, wait. That would be us. - Reply to this comment
- theres been fighting and killing each other for over 2 thousand years and some idiot in the white house thinks he can stop it.usa needs to get out and stay out of other countrys affairs.and start working on this country to fix it.
- Reply to this comment
- Our founding fathers were alot smarter than we thought.....maybe not all Americans are smart enough to thoughtfully exercise the right to vote. Ignorance is a powerful force in the hands of the masses!!!
- Reply to this comment
- remember vietnam,,,when the u.s. pulled out?how many will get killed this time during the pullout?i d say the u.s. is damned if it stays and damned if it pulls out.
- Reply to this comment
- Obama is the Antichrist?
Posted by hillaryin012
i don''t think so. if you knew biblical prophesy you would know that this anti-christ will be someone from middle eastern descent and coming from that area of the world. Obama is neither. - Reply to this comment
- They are all a bunch of babies who protest everyting and act like 1st graders and need to be put in Time Out for 10 years.
Posted by Colt8881
Like the American Democrats?
Posted by hillaryin012
Judging by the level of incoherence, stupidity, and whining going on - I think he''s talking about fake conservatives like you. - Reply to this comment
- You know what i changed my mind about Obama! I think he will be better for national security and the economy!
Besides I think Sarah Palin is really a Terrorist
Breaking News: The Terrorist Group AKA Alaska Independent party Calling on Russia to help secede from the Union
www.chilitoz.com
Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll former leaders of the Alaska Terrorist group AKA Independence Party and friends of Sarah Palin are calling on Russia to help them gain independence from the United States.
Watch video of Sarah palin addressing The Alaska Terrorist Group also known as The Independence party. They are calling for a civil war against the mainland.
www.chilitoz.com - Reply to this comment
- US stays - Iran behaves themselves.
US pulls out - Iran over runs Iraq with the help of Bin-ny boys thugs then moves on Israel. WWIII breaks out and guess where that puts us ... right back in the thick of it. Oh, and if Barack wins we''''re in really deep #&@*.
I agree, but not with the Barack part. If John McCain get''s in office will not be able to stop a WWIII because the bible says it''s going to happen no matters who''s in office. What people fail to realize that things are going to happen beyond our president''s control no matter who that person may be. - Reply to this comment
- The problem with us just leaving is that soon after we leave, they will be asking us to come back becasue they will be embroiled in a civil war that they want us to fight for them
- Reply to this comment
- US stays - Iran behaves themselves.
US pulls out - Iran over runs Iraq with the help of Bin-ny boys thugs then moves on Israel. WWIII breaks out and guess where that puts us ... right back in the thick of it. Oh, and if Barack wins we''re in really deep #&@*. - Reply to this comment
- The GOP have become a disgrace to this country and to the world.
November can not come soon enough:
Not only will Obama be President but in congress the number of Democrats will increase to a level that the Republicans will not see power for a generation or more and that will suit me fine.
This is an ex-conservative gun owner who truly can see the lies you have been feed it from the religous right wing and now may be traped and can''t get out. - Reply to this comment
- The US retaining control of Iraqi oil is not to be. The jig is up.
- Reply to this comment
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."




