July 16, 2009 10:51 AM

U.S. Warns Iraq To Accept Security Deal

(CBS/AP)  The Bush administration on Wednesday warned of "real consequences" for Iraq if it rejects a newly negotiated security pact.

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.

(AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
At left: U.S. soldiers of 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and Iraqi police secure a street during a joint patrol in Fadhiliah, eastern Baghdad, Oct. 22, 2008.

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."

Al-Dabbagh added: "A compulsory method must not be imposed on their choice and it is improper to address Iraqis in such manner."

Morrell 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.

© 2009 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 92 Comments
by dooney8 October 25, 2008 7:21 PM EDT
If they offered Clinton a Blow**b he would have said "hell yeah".
Reply to this comment
by dooney8 October 25, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
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
by samsel3 October 24, 2008 8:33 AM EDT
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
by samsel3 October 24, 2008 8:32 AM EDT
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
by missingamerica October 23, 2008 6:10 PM EDT
"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
by lastdance128 October 23, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
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
by middleman8 October 23, 2008 3:23 PM EDT
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
by good4always October 23, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
AMERICA THREATENING A COUNTRY (iraq) AGAIN!!!

Haven''t we destroyed that country enough already??
Reply to this comment
by janetlynn12 October 23, 2008 3:19 PM EDT
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
by ray999999 October 23, 2008 3:03 PM EDT
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
See all 92 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook