Will Iraqis still oppose pact? — Posted By Travis Oct 17, 2008

Bush and al Maliki sign the first draft of the U.S.-Iraq agreement (November 26, 2007)

Cross posted from Iraq Insider

For the past several months, the United States and Iraq have gone back and forth over negotiations on a proposed security agreement. Among the most contentious issues have been whether there should be a withdrawal date for U.S. forces and whether U.S. soldiers and contractors should be subject to Iraqi law.

It appears as if there was a breakthrough in negotiations this week. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice briefed senior American lawmakers about the draft agreement, which now apparently exists in textual form. This morning, U.S. negotiators in Iraq, along with Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. Ray Odierno, will go over the text of the proposed accord with senior Senate and House aides in a video conference at the White House. Congressional attendance has been limited to 12 people from the leadership and the two relevant committees in the House and Senate.

It is impossible to predict what Congress will do about the agreement before we know what is actually in the text. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is scheduled to submit the draft agreement today to Iraq's political and national security council. If it passes the council and winds its way through other government ministries, it then will go to the Iraqi Parliament, where al Maliki has promised an up-or-down vote.

Even though the agreement mandates that U.S. forces leave Iraq by 2012, there may still be widespread opposition to the agreement among Iraqi parliamentarians because the pact reportedly limits Iraq's ability to try U.S. contractors or soldiers for major crimes committed off-duty and off-base.

Back in July, I tallied up the number of Iraqi leaders who publicly opposed the agreement. I counted at least 49 Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and Shabaks from most of Iraq's major political parties: Dawa, United Iraqi Alliance, Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), Fadhila, Sadrist Movement, Badr Organization, Iraqi Accord Front (al-Tawafuq), Iraqi National List, and National Dialogue Front.

Will this opposition continue? Will Iraqis be satisfied with an agreement that keeps Americans in their country until 2012? Or will they consider that continued presence too long to satisfy the demands of the Iraqi people, many of whom want the United States out now?

With Iraqi provincial elections scheduled for early next year, we should not underestimate the universality of political pandering. If Iraqis dislike this agreement and oppose U.S. forces remaining in their country until 2012, Iraqi politicians will feel immense pressure to torpedo the pact in order to save their political skins. If this were to happen, the Bush administration would be furious. How dare the democracy we built vote against the continued presence of U.S. forces! Ingrates!

Ah, democracy, even in flawed form.

If Iraq rejected the agreement, it might actually go a long way toward asserting its sovereignty and independence from the United States. This would earn al Maliki and other Iraqi leaders kudos from the Iraqi street. And it would enrage Bush and Cheney, which is usually a sign that you're doing something right.

Iraqi, U.S. Negotiators Agree on Timelines for Troops (Update2)

By Ken Fireman

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have agreed on ``aspirational'' timelines for the presence of American forces in that country along with legal rules for the military personnel, a Pentagon official said.

Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the accord would allow for decisions on troop withdrawals to be based on security conditions.

Morrell wouldn't confirm that the draft would require U.S. forces to leave by 2011 unless Iraqi officials asked them to stay longer. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Sept. 14 that a major withdrawal of U.S. troops is expected by 2011.

While declining to reveal details of the draft agreement, which he said wasn't yet final, Morrell said Gates believes it would safeguard U.S. forces in Iraq.

The language of the agreement is being reviewed by senior officials in both countries and Gates has begun briefing key U.S. lawmakers on it, Morrell said. Negotiations on the accord have dragged on for months, causing the two countries to miss a self- imposed July 31 deadline for reaching agreement.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, his two deputies, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President of the Kurdish region Massoud Barzani met yesterday in Baghdad to discuss the details of the agreement before it is submitted to the political council of national security, according to Talabani's office.

``I don't think the secretary would be making phone calls in support of the document if he didn't believe it adequately protected our forces in Iraq, and in really all facets of their operations there, from combat to legal protections,'' Morrell said.

Lawmakers Consulted

Gates has spoken with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Representatives Ike Skelton and Duncan Hunter, the Democratic chairman and top Republican on the House panel. The phone calls were made in fulfillment of a pledge to consult with lawmakers before the agreement is completed, Morrell said.

``It's not finalized yet,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a briefing. ``There are steps that the Iraqis have to go through'' in their political process ``to take a look at this agreement.'' She declined to provide details on the accord.

Congress Won't Vote

The Bush administration doesn't plan to submit the agreement for a formal vote in Congress. It will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval, after first being reviewed by the Council of Ministers, Morrell said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke this week with al- Maliki, Talabani and Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi about the draft, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The so-called status-of-forces agreement would set the terms under which U.S. military personnel operate in Iraq after their current United Nations mandate to do so expires at the end of the year. Iraq may plan to seek an extension of the UN mandate if the agreement isn't signed by Dec. 31 or try to push through a temporary agreement without parliamentary approval.

The most contentious issues have been whether to set a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces and which country would have legal jurisdiction over American service personnel accused of wrongdoing.

Campaign Issue

Troop withdrawals have become an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. Democratic nominee Barack Obama has called for removing most American combat forces within 16 months; his Republican rival, McCain, opposes firm timetables.

The agreement would give Iraq the right to prosecute U.S. soldiers for serious crimes under certain circumstances, Reuters reported, citing Iraqi officials.

Levin said two days ago that he was ``skeptical of any agreement that would subject U.S. servicemen and women to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the middle of a chaotic war and in the absence of a judicial system that has been proven to be fair and protective of the rights of individuals.''

Morrell declined to say whether the draft accord granted Iraqis any legal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. He noted that U.S. forces ``do operate in countries in which we do not have exclusive jurisdiction,'' such as Japan and South Korea.

There are currently about 154,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. President George W. Bush last month announced plans to withdraw 8,000 troops over the next four months.

-- With reporting by Camilla Hall in London and Roger Runningen in Washington. Editors: Ann Hughey, Bill Schmick

To contact the reporter on this story: Ken Fireman in Washington at kfireman1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 17, 2008 11:58 EDT