Iraq Still Demanding Withdrawal Date, Right to Try U.S. troops
BAGHDAD - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Iraq Thursday in an effort to convince Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to consent to an agreement governing the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq that will be needed when the U.N. mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq expires at the end of this year.
A one-on-one meeting between Rice and Maliki was "deep and direct," said Sadiq al Rikabi, a top advisor to Maliki, but only time will tell if a compromise can be reached, he said.
"They tried to reach a compromise solution, but it is too early to say they reached an agreement about all issues," he said.
Iraqi and American officials have been claiming for weeks that they were on the brink of a security agreement. Maliki, however, has demanded a strict timetable for the withdrawal of American forces and insisted that U.S. troops must be subject to Iraqi law when they're outside their bases.
Maliki had demanded that U.S. combat forces leave his country by 2010, but the agreement includes only a vague goal of having combat troops out by 2011 if conditions permit, officials said.
"The Iraqi government wants as a sovereign country to be the master of the law in Iraq," said Ali al Adeeb, a Shiite legislator from Maliki's Dawa party. "There needs to be a strict timetable, otherwise these forces will stay forever. Not having a timetable means they will never leave."
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, confirmed that while Thursday's talks made progress, an agreement remains days away.
U.S. and Iraqi officials said the major sticking point is whether American forces can be prosecuted under Iraqi law for killing civilians, destroying or stealing property and other possible crimes.
The current draft says that U.S. soldiers and contractors on American bases will be immune to Iraqi law, but possible violations of the law outside U.S. bases will be referred to an investigative committee for possible prosecution, Adeeb said.
Maliki will accept nothing less than American forces coming under Iraqi law outside their bases, he said.
While Shiite lawmakers and advisors to Maliki indicated that a plethora of issues remain to be ironed out, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that a draft was complete and would be referred to the executive council on Friday.
If the council agrees to the draft, it will move to the Political Council for National Security before going to the Iraqi parliament, which must approve the agreement before the U.N. mandate expires.
Talking to reporters, Rice stressed that there was no agreement and put the burden of responsibility for completing the agreement on Maliki.
"The negotiators have made really, really good progress. They are satisfied with where they are," she said. "But obviously it is going to be the prime minister's call, so this is a chance for me to sit there with him."
In a press conference following her meetings with Maliki, Zebari, the top two U.S. officials in Iraq and other Iraqi officials, both Rice and Zebari said they were close but the agreement still needed to be reviewed by the Iraqi government.
"Time is of essence," Zebari said. "We are redoubling our efforts to bring this to a final and successful conclusion."
Rice said the security agreement was "advanced" and the Americans had shown "flexibility." The draft included "aspirational timetables." Iraqi officials have told McClatchy that the agreement would have combat troops out by 2011 and out of the nation's cities by the summer of 2009.
"What we're trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, that respects Iraqi sovereignty, that allows us to lay the kind of foundation that we need to make sure that we complete the work that we've all sacrificed so greatly to see accomplished," she said. "It will be an excellent agreement when we finally have agreement."
Fadel reported from Baghdad, Landay from Rice's traveling party.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
31 Comments so far
Show AllIronic isn't it, that there is now a timeline to withdraw US troops, and a deadline by which it will be achieved? Watch the bushies claim they "meant to do this" and just the way it is unfolding. I reckon the Iraqis played hardball, what with the UN mandate for US presence set to expire in December. They made an offer we couldn't refuse -- "Get out."
Has everyone seen the new feature where you are welcomed when you click on to an article ???? UPPER RIGHt of the screen, It's SUPER GOOD. It makes it far easier to keep track of your posts.
It's sometimes difficult to accept drastic changes. Oh,___ and it's a ____(1,000 word )____ limit now, ___NOT just ( 250.)
Hi ~SNOWWOLF~ ____Us guys? ___ Smile?
What we will spend with troops in Iraq until 2010, would give every Americna free health care for life and possibly send every H/S student to college free gratis. Then, "IF AND WHEN" when we ever do pull out, the Iraqis will setle the differences in their manner.
Finally, ~Wolf~, what on Earth is that mponstrosity embassy complex we built over there in Baghdad for? How may centuries did the Iraqis manage without our eye-sore embassy and thousands of Americans living in it and the "serve and protect" Blackwater troops guarding it?
Oh...how big an embassy is it?...I am unaware of that one
if its some big Gaudy thing then I am against it too...I am going to see if I can find out anything about it
The reason you haven't heard anything about it is you apparently get all your "information" from Fox News - it's been discussed on this site hundreds of times.
Hi IKare
(thank you for the nicest salutation I have had here)
Well...
I don't think America is about giving stuff away...America is about giving people opportunity to do for themselves...at least the America I believe in
Take Health Care for example...people aren't dissatisfied with what they get in care...but how much they pay for it...if you want to fix healthcare rein in the trial lawyers...Lawyers are whats screwing up this country for everybody...do I really need a disclaimer on a package of fishhooks that says "DO NOT SWALLOW"...well Duh...I think I could have figured that one out
look at a "Class Action" Lawsuit...the Lawyers get Millions and the clients get a check for $20 each...its pretty obvious what needs to be done...but as long as we send politicians to D.C. that are bought by Special interests we're gonna have this problem....I'm as big an idealist as all of you are...but I am a realist too
Somebody mentioned term limits in an earlier post...Yes...term limits will help un-f... um, screw a lot of whats been done
We can fix America again...and make it what it was meant to be...but going down the Socialism road will only make things worse....lets take care of the truly needy...absolutely...
Whoa...5500 staff and the size of the vatican?...
you're right...that is a monstrousity......I am not going to defend that..Sounds like State Department got a bit full of themselves...
and they were such weenies too about going there to serve...no...they don't deserve that...it should not be any larger than any other of our embassies...although it should be well fortified
Will all this talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk ever end ?
Um...you can hit the hide comments button...just a suggestion
The US Emperial Stormtroopers subject to a law...any law ???? THAT will be something to see....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
that should say US "Imperial" Stormtroopers...
but you're a weenie for saying it
I will remind you that the American Military (as an Institution) enjoys a 76% approval rating from the American People...PEOPLE...Not Democrat Not Republican...what is Congress's approval ratings?...14%?...the Presidents 33%?
I'll remind you that you live under the umbrella of their protection...you may not approve of them but calling them Stormtroopers shows your smallness of thought
Peace and Justice
http://www.youtube.com/user/GreenProgress
I think Iraq will get their withdrawal date (no reason to stay too much longer) but they won't get to try U.S. Troops...or Contractors for that matter
I predict some Army Personnel left in Country to train the Iraqi Army..but most gone by 2010
you guys can smile now...one front of the GWOT has been won...its kinda like VE day...now for VJ
Psst....It's about oil. Never was about weapons, terror or freedom.
Oil. Who can play the game the best to wrest the control of the worlds resources.
Iraq was never a "war" front for the GWOT. Iraqis have never been a threat to the US. Iraq will never be "won" by the US. Anything else are White House lies.
you're looking at it all wrong...
We can now say with 100% certainty there are no loose Iraqi WMD running around...the Cat and Mouse game is over...
A usually toothless, U.N. Mandate was enforced (Iran take heed)
550 tons of yellowcake uranium formerly under U.N. seal is now safely in Canada (careful with that stuff, eh?)
and the big bonus....25 million Iraqi's are now living in a brand new democracy
it always sucks to lose our own people...but if we'd cut and run they would have died for nothing
it works for me....and those like me
You're the one looking at it all wrong. Loose Iraqi weapons are now in the hands of real terrorist organizations, millions of Iraqis are dead or displaced or living in fear, we've bankrupted our country and our future to make a few oil barons and their Bushco pals happy. If we had never gone in none of our people would have died for nothing, or for oil. You and those like you are ignorant killers who believe everything done in the name of the flag works for you. You and the blind, deaf, and dumb flag-wavers like you are the problem with America today.
Who's got it all wrong?
Iraq began dismantling its arsenal when UN inspectors arrived in September 1991. At that point, Iraq had massive programs, massive stockpiles and was not cooperating with the UN. In 1992, the UN continued to push Iraq on the whereabouts of WMD, and it admitted to unilaterally destroying the weapons. By 1996, ninety to ninety-five percent of Iraq’s WMD were known to have been destroyed. The remaining five to ten percent was shown to be itemized in his declaration.
The Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, was summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, but stands as the most accurate compilation of data assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programs (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report). Iraq had disarmed and this administration knew that. It knew it then and it knows it now. It's just no one wanted to accept that conclusion. They wanted the oil.
In fact, Rolf Ekeus revealed that in 1997, the US acted to prevent UN officials from certifying that Iraq had complied with UN resolutions. In March 1997,Ekeus was close to certifying that Iraq was in compliance with UN Resolution 687. At that time it became clear that Unscom might destroy the public pretext for the UN sanctions. At the same time had sanctions been lifted in 1997, there were at least 40 international petroleum companies that were actively seeking production-sharing and development contracts with Iraq and such deals would have made Iraq the world’s fourth oil producer by 2004. In short, Washington’s Middle East policy risked leaving a decisive portion of world oil production in the hands of its rivals.
Lies told to us by our government continue to be exposed from insiders who know the difference between democracy and oilygarchy. The idea that the petrol oilygarchs were willing to have Iran and Iraq sell their oil in currencies other than the US dollar was unthinkable. Stoking fear based on lies was premeditated indoctrination and designed to conquer the area to prevent a redistribution of influence in the region that would favor American imperialism’s rivals.
In fact, Rolf Ekeus revealed that in 1997, the US acted to prevent UN officials from certifying that Iraq had complied with UN resolutions. In March 1997,Ekeus was close to certifying that Iraq was in compliance with UN Resolution 687. At that time it became clear that Unscom might destroy the public pretext for the UN sanctions. At the same time had sanctions been lifted in 1997, there were at least 40 international petroleum companies that were actively seeking production-sharing and development contracts with Iraq and such deals would have made Iraq the world’s fourth oil producer by 2004. In short, Washington’s Middle East policy risked leaving a decisive portion of world oil production in the hands of its rivals.
Now Snow Wolf, take the time and refute this information point by point. Prove that the UN was not doing its job. Provide dates, declarations etc. Otherwise all you are doing is repeating talking points and blowing hot air. Cut n Run....yeah, right. Take the time and prove your fuhrer's propoganda.
Dude...My brain hurts just reading that...but I promise I will research each point this weekend and give you an answer on as many points as I can verify...
but right now...there is a cold can of Guiness calling me from the 'fridge...listen...~mike...mike...you know you want me~
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that actual fact in simple language "makes your head hurt".
It was really an elementary read. Facts are stubborn. Yet all they require is honesty.
Lies are easy to repeat yet carry megatons of destruction in their wake.
You don't have to give me the answers. I already know them. I would suggest you study them carefully though. Starting with Vinson Elkins all the way up through the PNAC and the BTC pipeline. Much much more than that but the dots are all there. It’s a long read.
There is no way you will accomplish it in a weekend. The damages extend back way too far for you to absorb it in any less time than I did. Start reading, get back with me in about 6 years.
SnowWolf,
We can never be 100% certain now, or before the invasion. UNSCOM and the CIA knew with near certainty there were no WMDs. They knew with near certainty that there were no delivery platforms. George Tenet briefed President Bush on this Sep 18, 2002. This we do know with 100% certainty. We also knew there were no WMDs because Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, and Tahir Jalil Habbush, the chief of Iraqi intelligence, were on the CIA payroll and were reporting VERIFIABLE information that there were no WMDs throughout. Both men are now enjoying a highly comfortable retirement in Jordan with a large CIA pension and protection.
The UN Mandate was predicated on the lies of Colin Powell.
We have known about, and the exact location of the 550 tons of yellow cake since 1991. The CIA and UNSCOM monitored it very closely. If ever it had been determined that it was a threat, it could have been removed during the first war in Iraq, or subsequently destroyed. That 550 tons was never a threat.
And as for a "brand new democracy", most people, and nearly all Iraqis I am sure, will call it a puppet government. Most Iraqis do state that they were bettor off under Hussein. So what good have we done them?
Finally, whether we leave Iraq or stay form another 100 years, the Americans that dies in Iraq HAVE died for nothing. They died because of the greed of a few powerful Americans. So they did die for nothing, and there is nothing we can do about it. Saying "sorry" does not cut it.
Please, non of your neocon revisionist history. The facts are in, and every statement you make expose your reluctance to accept anything other than Bush Administration demagogy.
I will consider your points...I hope you're not getting them out of Ron Suskind's book though...'cause its unraveling daily
Not from Suskind. You can read it all in the court records from United States v. Libby.
It's not unraveling as fast as Bush/Cheney lies.
Remember, the negotiations have so far been between only the US and Maliki's administration. It has yet to go to the Iraqi Parliament who have no love for the US occupation.
Doesn't matter. Republicans know this is a loser for them. They'll declare victory soon and beat a hasty retreat. Then when the whole thing explodes like a cheap watch, they'll blame the Democrats (who deserve all of the contempt Republicans have for them) for the mess. I can hear it now, "When George Jr. left office, the 'Surge' was working. I don't know how those Dems could screw it up so badly!"
quickstepper (11:11) You actually believe spending billions of dollars "projecting our strength" is an acceptable foreign policy? You must not have any children or you're speaking for mccain's middle class.
You're assuming that we can only project our strength as Bush and Cheney have done, as part of an imperious and abusive foreign policy.
We have longstanding commitments to come to the aid of our allies in the event of aggression by mutual enemies, projecting strength in a defensive and honorable posture. We can no longer do so.
How long do you think it will be before China, noting Bush's feeble response to the Russian assault on Georgia, will become more aggressive toward Taiwan?
Whatever foreign policy sins the US may have committed in the past, it's an ugly world and we need a strong military. Thanks to Bush and Cheney, we don't have one.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should abandon our ability to defend ourselves?
I have both children and grandchildren.
q
The illusion rice is trying to create is negotions between friends. The people sure don't see it that way. A sovereign Iraq is not our ultimate plan. We'll once again have to offer bribes to parliament members to get OUR plan accepted.
The Right to Try U.S. troops?
America assumes the 'right' to punish anyone without a trial muchless a conviction or even an accusation.
Bush and Cheney's reckless handling of our armed forces personnel have left us incapable of projecting our strength when it may truly be necessary.
We've already seen Russia and Iran grow more defiant as they regard our weakened state. Why would anyone be surprised when a nation full of people whom we've brutalized for years do the same?
q