Iraqis: Deal Close On Timetable For US Withdrawal

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and ANNE GEARAN | August 7, 2008 09:38 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

In this photo released by the US Army on Thursday, Aug. 7, 2008, U.S. Army soldiers from 1st Platoon, G Troop, Task Force 1-35, 2nd Brigade Combat Team move out on patrol in search of weapons caches with an attachment of Iraqi Army soldiers during Operation Iron Pursuit on Monday, July 28, 2008 in 7 Nissan village, Diyala province, Iraq. Two Iraqi officials say the U.S. and Iraq are close to a deal under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later. (AP Photo/US Army, Sgt. Eric C. Hein, HO)

BAGHDAD — Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone _ where the U.S. Embassy is located _ to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree _ a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

U.S. acceptance _ even tentatively _ of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Throughout the conflict, President Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.

Bush's shift to a timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on a security pact governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Iraq's Shiite-led government has been holding firm for some sort of withdrawal schedule _ a move the Iraqis said was essential to win parliamentary approval.

Story continues below
advertisement

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to comment on details of the talks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nangtongo said the negotiations were taking place "in a constructive spirit" based on respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

In Washington, U.S. officials acknowledged that some progress has been made on the timelines for troop withdrawals but that the immunity issue remained a huge problem. One senior U.S. official close to the discussion said no dates have been agreed upon.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations have not been finished.

But the Iraqis insisted the dates had been settled preliminarily between the two sides, although they acknowledged that nothing is final until the entire negotiations have been completed.

One Iraqi official said persuading the Americans to accept a timetable was a "key achievement" of the talks and that the government would seek parliamentary ratification as soon as the deal is signed.

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."

The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations _ but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.

The Iraqis also want American forces hand over any Iraqi they detain. The U.S. insists that detainees must be "ready" for handover, which the Iraqi officials assume means the Americans want to interrogate them first.

As the talks drag on, American officials said the Bush administration is losing patience with the Iraqis over the negotiations, which both sides had hoped to wrap up by the end of July.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" phone conversation about the situation on Wednesday during which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility particularly on immunity, one U.S. senior official said.

"The sovereignty issue is very big for the Iraqis and we understand that. But we are losing patience," the official said. "The process needs to get moving and get moving quickly."

The official could not say how long the call lasted but said it was "not brief" and "tense at times."

In London, Britain's defense ministry said it is also in talks with Iraq's government over the role of British troops after the U.N. mandate runs out. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said that early next year Britain will reduce its troops in Iraq, now at about 4,100, and that Britain's role in the country will change fundamentally.

Iraq's position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities and after the rise in world oil prices flooded the country with petrodollars.

As the government's confidence rose, Iraqi officials believed they were in a strong negotiating position _ especially with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, pledging to remove all combat forces within his first 16 months in office if security conditions allow.

Standing firm against the Americans also enhances al-Maliki's nationalist credentials, enabling him to appeal for support from Iraqis long opposed to the U.S. presence.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops _ but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.

The announcement is expected during weekly Islamic prayer services on Friday.

"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."

Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

___

Gearan and Matthew Lee contributed to this report from Washington, Robert H. Reid from Baghdad.

BAGHDAD — Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Asso...
BAGHDAD — Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Asso...
 
Comments
120
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
photo

Those of you thinking that this will be embarrasment to Dubay and McCain are unfortunately wrong.

"The surge is working" will become "The surge worked"

"We're winning the war in Iraq" will become "We won the war in Iraq"

"We will be greeted as liberators" will become "The Iraqis are grateful how we saved them from Saddam"

And they will insist, INSIST I tell you, that absolutely NONE of this would have happened if the Democrats had gotten their way.

And the gullible segment of the american population will lap it up because it is the kind of 'america allways wins' mindset that they have been brought up with since elementary school.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 08/09/2008

Really? That's great!! And right before an election!!! What an amazing coincidence! Sure didn't see that one coming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 08/08/2008
photo

Hilarious.

I look forward to the day when the democratically elected government of Iraq assists the Iranian missile forces in setting up IRBM sites in western Iraq. (I will cheer, because that will bring the Israelis closer to the negotiating table). The US never was able to find all those SCUDS Saddam put out there.

The fact is, our president should get an Iranian national holiday in his name, because at great expense and loss of life, the United States eliminated the most serious check on Iran's regional power (the war with Iraq cost iran about one million dead). Yes, our military performed superbly, and Iran will always be grateful.

Let me be clear. Iran is no threat to the US or our interests in the region. Our stupid neocon policies are the threat. Iran helped us initially when we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Quaeda is Shiite, a sworn enemy of Shiite Iran.

With intelligent leadership, we can have a peaceful and constructive relationship with Iran.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 AM on 08/08/2008
photo

Obviously, I should have written Al-Quaeda is Sunni." I have no genetic links with John McCain!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 AM on 08/08/2008

Obama was right!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 AM on 08/08/2008

Like Jon Stewart said on his show, about the "time horizon,"...............a horizon is something that you can move toward and never really get there. The closer you get the farther the horizon moves away. Time horizon is just more thought manipulation by the bushies.
Why would we need such imunity if we are operating within the established rules of warfare??? Like everything concerning our involvement in Iraq, this just doesn't smell right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 AM on 08/08/2008

How many have seen the movie "Red Dawn" ? it can very easily happen in America. America is very vulnerable internally. Now.....with the reserves in Iraq....much more so then in the movie, In the movie....the reserves were quite inept......in reality...they are in Iraq....nobody on the homefront.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 AM on 08/08/2008
photo

I saw the movie -- and no nation would be silly enough to invade when we're doing such a great job of destroying ourselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 AM on 08/08/2008

If America does not respect Iraq's wishes and get out....the why are Americans braying to China to give tibet autonomy?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 08/08/2008

America has to give Iraq back to the Iraquis.....regardless of the "Black Eye" America suffers over this "blunder". Two wrongs cannot make a right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 AM on 08/08/2008

First...they need their country back.....then they can settle their internal diffarences.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 AM on 08/08/2008

The Iraquis don't ask anymore from America then Americans would ask from the Iraquis if the Tables were turned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 AM on 08/08/2008
photo

For some reason I do not trust one thing that I am told about this situation. I wonder why? Bushco will exceed executive powers once again, bypassing the normal channels for signing any agreement. We have to get all these crooks in the admin out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 08/08/2008

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW WHAT'S MEANT WHEN THE PRESIDENT (AND THE RIGHT) SPEAKS OF FREEDOM IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN POLICY?

It means we seek the freedom to what we think is in the best interest of this country, and the concerns of the countries impacted by the doctrine that drives our definition of freedom in this regard matters little.

It begs the question about what's sought, gained and lost in the pact the administration (witht a small a) is seeking with Iraq - that's if Iraq even has a real say in the matter. So, regarding the near deal.

These developments are somewhat encouraging, and I wonder, what don't we know about core components of this deal? Any information out there about air space, oil profits, and particulars regarding contractors? Where now are the Legislatures on this process, given their stated opposition to treaty-like agreements being made without congressional participation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 08/07/2008

Victory is complete. My compliments to our superb, flexible and utterly unrelenting military and likewise our President who refused to give in to the naysayers. Job well done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 08/07/2008
photo

Bu$h&Co don't give a hoot one way or the other. They've all got their $$$'s, that's all that matters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 08/07/2008

Dang!

Victory!

I must have just missed it.

Who won? Or lost?

Sounds a lot like we're still taking casualties.

And surrender monkeys, making timetables.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 08/07/2008

What color is the sky in your world?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 08/08/2008
- Paul I'm a Fan of Paul permalink

Victory is complete?

Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to the US and all it cost us to find out was over 4000 killed, 30,000 wounded, untold Iraqi deaths, a trilion dollars in off the budget expenses, a busted military and loss of constitutional rights through the ill-advised Patriot Act .

Who won?

Bin Laden.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 AM on 08/08/2008

Al Quaeda chose to fight in Iraq and was destroyed. Sad for you that you're incapable of seeing that but it's your problem. So the guy hiding out in a cave with his international funding dried up and most of his fighters (the ones that got out alive) coming back with their tails between their legs is the winner? What a lucky guy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 08/08/2008

Obama said we need a 16 month timeline to bring the troops home.

McCain said Obama is forfeiting and there must be no timeline.

Bush said he will accept no timeline.

The Iraqis invited Obama to come meet with them, and they announced their preference for a 16 month timeline.

Bush administration quietly accepts the timeline.

McCain stutters.. but... but... but!

Game, Set, and Match to Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 08/07/2008

These developments are somewhat encouraging, and I wonder, what don't we know about core components of this deal? Any information out there about air space, oil profits, and particulars regarding contractors? Where now are the Legislatures on this process, given their stated opposition to treaty-like agreements being made without congressional participation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 PM on 08/07/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect