U.S. Talks With Iraq Could Stretch Years

The next White House will most likely inherit the difficult negotiations over the long-term status of American military forces in Iraq as disputes linger over setting timelines for expected troop withdrawals, U.S. officials say.

U.S. negotiators once hoped to finalize the pact by the end of this month. But the goal has rapidly diminished to finding a stopgap measure by the end of the year.

It also appears increasingly likely that the final detailed agreement - spelling out everything from troop levels to taxes on the military - still could be years away, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the talks said this week.

The shrinking expectations by Washington reflect a toughening stance by the Iraqi side.

The government has not backed off demands such as a timeframe for combat troop withdrawals, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki senses no political benefit to nailing down a long-term deal in the waning months of the Bush administration.

The talks are essentially trying to shape the U.S. military's role after Iraq's forces take full command of security. The U.S. military has praised the pace of Iraqi training, but a complete turnover of security responsibilities could be years away.

For the moment, the main talks are on forging a "bridge" agreement that would give temporary legal cover to the American military presence after a U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.

That's not coming anytime soon, said the U.S. officials, who spoke on condition on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. One official said the bargaining could "go down to the wire."

Al-Maliki, visiting Germany on Wednesday, said the negotiations are "still going on" regarding the pact, formally known at a Status of Forces Agreement, which defines the U.S. military's limits and obligations in a host country.

"They have reached advanced levels in regard to an agreement on its principles," he added.

That, however, is an apparent reference to the "bridge" document, which falls far short of the rule-by-rule clarity of a formal status agreement.

One of the U.S. officials said Washington hopes to retain the prime parts - the "filet mignon" - in a bridge pact. The official described them as dealing with rules covering the U.S. military's "jurisdiction and authority" and powers to detain Iraqis.

The official said that U.S. negotiators have not abandoned hope of eventually reaching a wide-ranging status of forces accord. But it could take years - and other measures, such as a diplomatic memorandum, might hold the issue in place for a long time, the official said.

That means the next president will likely decide how to proceed.

It's "kicking the can down to the next administration to negotiate a long-term agreement," said Colin Kahl, a professor of political studies at Georgetown University, in a Tuesday conference call hosted by the National Security Network, a Washington-based foreign policy group.

The Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, visited Baghdad earlier this week, and Iraq's government spokesman expressed hope of a U.S. combat troop withdrawal in 2010 - roughly the same 16-month timetable Obama has pledged. His Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has not endorsed target dates for troop pullouts.

This is one of the main roadblocks in the status of forces talks. Iraq wants to link the pact to a time window on removing American combat forces, but U.S. negotiators had not given ground. The White House last week offered some possible wiggle room by saying it was open to discussing a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.

The official also said nearly everything else was open to negotiations, including the number of American troops allowed to stay in the country and the number of bases. There are currently about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

"What's complicating the situation is whether what the Iraqis want is a time horizon or a timetable," said Kahl. "You've seen a number of conflicting statements from the White House and the government on this front."