General Odierno rejects Early pullout plan

No mention of the referendum on the SOFA agreement that is supposed to be voted on this month last I heard. Almost never do articles mention the fact that Iraq might have something to say about the pace and timing of U.S. withdrawals. There is no doubt in any event that there will be a continued presence of the U.S. in Iraq. The huge embassy is a clear sign of this among other things. Also, troops will be reclassified and security for many U.S. operatives will no doubt be contracted out to private groups to ensure that profiteers are happy.

News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/04/gen-odierno-rejects-early-pullout-plan/print/ -

Gen. Odierno Rejects Early Pullout Plan

Posted By Jason Ditz On August 4, 2009 @ 11:35 am In Uncategorized

Top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno today rejected the Reese Memo calling for US troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, saying that the war is going so swimmingly six years in that Americans need to “stay the course.”

“Overall, its gone very, very well,” Gen. Odierno declared, echoing the sentiments of other officials that the current war, despite the rising violence over the past several months, is well on track. However, he insisted “our goal here given us by the president is a secure, stable sovereign self-reliant Iraq. We’re not there yet.” He also cautioned that the growing tensions between Kurds and Arabs made the gains officials are constantly talking about “fragile.”

Col. Timothy Reese, the senior military adviser, issued the memo late last month urging the US to dramatically speed up its pullout from Iraq, saying that keeping the 132,000 troops there “isn’t yielding benefits commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition.”

Col. Reese’s memo is the first high profile indication in years that there was any dissent within the military from the Bush and later Obama Administration’s insistences that the war needs to be continually extended despite constant assurances that it is going well. Ultimately, however, Col. Reese’s comments seem to have been given little public credence among other officials.
.

SOFA delay in Iraq

This is from antiwar.com
Even if there were a referendum it could take place at earliest next July and if it rejected the SOFA the US would still have a year to get out of Iraq! Nothing is mentioned here about the provisions re oil profits that give US control over those in effect. Anyway the whole agreement is so studded with minefields that it is not even translated into English for general consumption and the US is already noting loopholes: from Yahoonews.
But three officials in Washington said the administration of US President George W. Bush has withheld the official English translation of the agreement to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the parliamentary vote.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the official English language text of the agreement was designated as "sensitive but unclassified."
"There are a number of areas in here where they have agreement on the same wording but different understandings about what the words mean," said one US official.
The White House National Security Council said it had held up the translation's release until the Iraqi parliament votes.......
In the event the SOFA is approved, the US could simply circumvent parts of the agreement, said officials.
For example, for the provision that bars the US from launching military operations into neighboring countries from Iraqi territory, the administration could cite another provision that allows parties to retain the right of self-defense -- such as pursuing groups that launch strikes on US targets from Syria or Iran.
The provision that appears to require the US to notify Iraqi officials in advance of any planned military operations and seek Iraqi approval for them could also be altered, said the officials.
Some US military figures find the provision especially troubling, although US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, head of the US Central Command David Petraeus and the top US commander in Iraq Raymond Odierno have all endorsed it.
"Telling the Iraqis in advance would be an invitation to an ambush," said one US official.
The Iraqi government and security forces are "thoroughly penetrated by the insurgents, the Iranians, the Sadrists (followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr) and ordinary folks who just sell scraps of intelligence," he added.

Delay May Lead to Iraq Referendum on US Troops
Posted November 26, 2008
The Iraqi government continues to scramble to get ready for tomorrow’s talks on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and tentatively the vote (though it has already been delayed twice this week). It is now being reported that the government has agreed on a demand by the a key Sunni bloc for a national referendum on the SOFA, to be held in July. They have reportedly rejected other demands for reforms however.
Assuming the referendum deal is sufficient to get the Sunni bloc’s support, the SOFA will likely pass easily over the remaining opposition. The United States does not appear to object to the referendum, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insists that the SOFA will still go into effect on January 1 regardless of the pending referendum.
Under the terms of the SOFA, Iraq can cancel the deal at any time, but would be required to give the United States a year of advanced notice before doing so. Assuming the SOFA indeed goes into force before the referendum the July 30, 2009 vote would not have any effect on the deal until late 2010.
Related Stories

Maliki, Sistani support SOFA...

This is from the Washington Post.
I am a bit surprised that Sistani has supported SOFA since there are still limitations upon Iraq sovereignty particularly re US troops and contractors as far as I understand it. The agreement must still pass parliament but it now seems as if it might very well pass but we will see. Once details of the plan are released assuming they are then there could be considerable resistance but even Al Sadr may have decided to support the agreement. On the other hand the parliament is so lethargic that it may just go on holiday!

Iraq Head, Top Cleric Back 2011 Exit by U.S.Agreement Gives Pact Better Odds of Passing

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, November 16, 2008; A01
BAGHDAD, Nov. 15 -- Iraq's prime minister and its most influential Shiite cleric have decided to support a security agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in the country until the end of 2011, sharply increasing its chances of passage in the Iraqi parliament, officials said Saturday.
Approval of the so-called status of forces agreement would be a cause for relief among Bush administration officials, who have grown increasingly concerned that U.S. forces would begin the new year with no legal basis to remain in Iraq. A U.N. mandate authorizing their presence is set to expire Dec. 31.
A delegation of Shiite lawmakers and government officials met Saturday with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to review the latest changes to the agreement, and the cleric "gave the Iraqi side the green light to sign it," according to an official in Sistani's office who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Sistani's views carry great weight among members of the Shiite parties that dominate Iraq's government.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made clear his own support for the agreement and has received assurances from nearly all the parties in the cabinet that they would back it, said an adviser, Sami al-Askari.
A senior U.S. official in Baghdad, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, called Maliki's decision "an important and positive step."
Many Iraqi politicians have withheld public endorsement of the accord because of wariness about appearing too pro-American in the run-up to provincial elections expected in late January. In addition, Iran has been pressuring legislators to end the U.S. presence, according to American and Iraqi officials.
But the Iraqi government also managed to wrest some face-saving changes in the document in last-minute wrangling. The current draft sets a fixed, end-of-2011 deadline for the departure of U.S. forces, unlike earlier versions that said the U.S. military presence could be extended if Iraq requested it.
An aide to President-elect Barack Obama said Saturday that Obama supports the principle underlying the agreement but had not yet seen the specifics of the text. The aide recalled that, during the campaign, Obama said its completion before the end of the year was "critical . . . so that our troops have the protection they need."
The agreement would not affect Obama's pledge to withdraw most U.S. combat forces within 16 months of his inauguration. The document says nothing about when a drawdown would begin, the rate of departure or accomplishing it earlier than 2011.
The cabinet is expected to sign off on the bilateral accord Sunday or Monday, said Askari, a lawmaker who belongs to Maliki's Dawa party. Askari said the only holdout in the cabinet is the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group led by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. His spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Askari said "the difficult part will be the parliament," which must also approve the agreement. But most of the parties represented in the cabinet are expected to urge their lawmakers to fall in line. Maliki's support for the accord was first reported by McClatchy Newspapers and the Los Angeles Times.
The agreement would transform the U.S. military role here, giving the Iraqi armed forces and court system a much greater say in security operations. U.S. officials have lobbied hard for the accord, saying that without some legal umbrella, the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would have to start withdrawing at the end of this year.
Negotiators had finished a draft agreement last month. But Maliki, whose party has only 15 seats in the 275-seat parliament, thought he could not get it through the legislature, according to aides and politicians who have discussed the matter with him.
Iraq then asked for several changes. When the U.S. government agreed to some, Maliki decided to support the accord, Askari said.
"He knows many other parties have to be persuaded to accept it. He wanted some time and the support of the U.S.," Askari said. "So now he is feeling in a good position, he can go forward."
Maliki is expected to address the nation early in the week about the agreement, Askari said.
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said in an interview that "it looks like the atmosphere is much better" for approving the accord. But he warned that Iraq's notoriously lethargic parliament must move quickly, before it takes its scheduled break at month's end for the period of the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
"From now until the end of November is very critical," he said.
Opposition to the agreement in parliament is expected to come from the party of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which controls 30 of the 275 seats and has held frequent demonstrations against the pact.
In addition, parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a member of a small Sunni party, "is not full-hearted behind the agreement," Askari said. However, a source in Mashhadani's office said Saturday that the speaker had decided to back the accord. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The last-minute concessions made by U.S. authorities appear to be mainly symbolic, according to officials from both sides. U.S. officials did not give in on the Iraqis' main demand, which was that Iraq be given greater jurisdiction over American troops who commit major crimes while off duty.
Still, Iraqi politicians got enough minor changes to claim victory on an agreement that the country's defense and interior ministers have called vital to maintaining stability.
For example, the U.S. side agreed to scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested, according to one official close to the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitivity.
But nothing prevents the Iraqis from seeking such an extension, according to congressional staffers briefed by U.S. officials last week in Washington.
The deputy parliament speaker, Khalid al-Attiya, said after leading a delegation to the city of Najaf to visit Sistani that "the Americans have responded positively on two important amendments. The first one is the Americans should withdraw from cities and suburbs on June 30, 2009, and the second one is that Americans should leave Iraq in 2011."
The Bush administration has always envisioned the accord as an executive agreement, which does not require congressional approval. Bush has consistently told Congress that the status of forces accord and an accompanying strategic framework agreement are "nonbinding" and would not tie the hands of a new president. But experts said its terms are enforceable under international law.
Obama has said that Congress should have a chance to review the document before it is signed by Bush, although he has stopped short of demands by some lawmakers that they should be given the same veto power accorded the Iraqi parliament.
The president-elect's policy calls for a "residual force" of an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. He has also conditioned ongoing U.S. training for the Iraqi security forces on progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq.
The U.S. military reported Saturday that two soldiers and a Marine had been killed. A statement said the two soldiers died in a noncombat-related helicopter accident in the northern city of Mosul. The Marine died of injuries from an improvised explosive device in the western province of Anbar.
Three car bombs exploded in Baghdad and northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 12 people and injuring dozens, authorities said.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington and special correspondents Qais Mizher and Zaid Sabah in Baghdad, Dlovan Brwari in Mosul and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.

Report: Maliki will endorse US security pact.

The pact will still need to go through the Iraqi parliament in which there may still be quite a bit of opposition. Shiite leaders such as Sistani and Al Sadr still do not support the draft apparently. See this report.

Report: Maliki Will Endorse US Security Pact
Posted November 14, 2008
With Iraq’s cabinet preparing to discuss the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States, and a vote expected sometime this weekend, the latest and seemingly final draft of the controversial deal is expected to receive a shot in the arm in the form of an endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The Los Angeles Times cites one of Maliki’s “trusted confidants” who says the prime minister will press his cabinet to approve the deal and give an address endorsing the deal ahead of a vote in parliament. Maliki’s support for the SOFA will likely be of enormous help in getting the deal through the cabinet, but there is no guarantee it will sway parliament to support the measure over popular objection.
Iraq requested over 100 amendments to the previous “final” draft of the SOFA, which also seemed to have the support of the prime minister before popular sentiment turned securely against it. The United States accepted some of the amendments, but rejected others, most particularly a change regarding immunity for US troops who commit crimes in Iraq.The White House has also endorsed the current draft, with spokesman Gordon Johndroe calling it a “good agreement.” This is hardly surprising, of course, in that they were the ones who submitted the draft in the first place. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood indicated that the US was unwilling to entertain further negotiations, but they seemed quite resistant to the current round until Prime Minister Maliki announced he would not be submitting the draft to parliament without amendments.

US unlikely to accept revised Iraq SOFA

This is from the Monterey-Herald.
Time is running out and it seems that the US has drawn the line at its final draft. While that draft gives more power to the Iraqis than earlier drafts it still does not give the Iraqis much jurisdiction when troops or contractors commit crimes and none when they are on missions.

U.S. unlikely to accept revised Iraq security pact
By LEILA FADEL McClatchy Newspapers
Article Last Updated: 10/29/2008 01:47:27 AM PDT

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet agreed Tuesday to amend a draft agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, but introducing new provisions that the U.S. military is unlikely to accept.
Among other things, the amendments would give Iraqi authorities the right to determine whether a U.S. service member was on- or off-duty when he or she committed an alleged crime outside American bases, where such an American would be tried. It also would allow authorities to inspect all U.S. cargo entering the nation.
Iraqi politicians see the changes as a way to preserve Iraqi sovereignty.
The amendments were made to "preserve the basic principles and the sovereignty of Iraq and its supreme interests," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh in a statement. The government, al-Dabbagh said in an interview on an Arabic satellite news station, has no "third option."
U.S. officials have described the original draft agreement, which would replace the United Nations mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq, as "final," and the Iraqi amendments are likely to push negotiations between Iraq and the U.S. to an impasse.
In Washington Tuesday, senior U.S. military officials said that while they were unaware of the proposed changes, the Pentagon very likely would reject them.
"We are very comfortable with the draft sent forward," a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the negotiations

publicly. "But the longer we wait, the more in peril this gets."
The Iraqi parliament must approve any agreement, so if the Americans don't accept the proposed Iraqi changes, the cabinet will have to decide whether to submit the agreement to the parliament as it stands, which could doom its chances of passage.
Iraqi officials involved in the process told McClatchy Newspapers that they don't believe the two nations will reach an agreement before the U.N. mandate for the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of this year.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is considering renewing the mandate, but he wants changes that would lift the immunity from Iraqi prosecution that private contractors in Iraq now enjoy. The U.S. will veto a new mandate with any changes, officials have said.
While U.S. military officials are skeptical about the agreement, the Bush administration remains hopeful.
"We remain confident that we'll be able to get one," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino referring to the status of forces agreement. "However, if we don't, there will be consequences for that. I don't think there are Iraqis — I don't think there are any Iraqis who think that they are ready to do this all on their own — deep down."

Iraqi Clerics Speak Out against SOFA

This is from antiwar.com.
It is not clear that the agreement is even finalised yet according to a New York Times article.
As this article points out even if it is finally agreed the opposition is likely to be so strong within Iraq that it can never pass parliament. Both Sistani and Al Sadr plus some Sunnis oppose the agreement even as it is now. The U.S. is insistent that there be considerable immunity for its soldiers from Iraqi law and also perhaps for others working for the defence department. The Iraqis are unlikely to allow that. The details of the agreement are secret so discussion is only about leaked terms in draft agreements. Of course the US government is not about to let the US legislature to discuss the terms. This doesn't seem to be a big issue in the U.S.

Iraqi Clerics Speak Out Against SOFA
Posted October 17, 2008
There aren’t many things that a confidant of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a council of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and the followers of firebrand Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr can all agree on, but they seem to have found common ground on one thing: they all oppose the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States.
Imam al-Qabanji told a crowd of hundreds in the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf today that the Shi’ite clergy is “very worried” about the SOFA. A Sunni council issued an anti-SOFA fatwa, and followers of al-Sadr are planning a massive demonstration tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of US forces.
Earlier in the week the SOFA was reportedly finalized, though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted today that this was not the case. She anticipated a final agreement “soon.” It is unclear what if any terms remain to be hashed out, and details of the finished or nearly-finished deal have yet to be made public. The question of US troop immunity was among the last contentious issues.
Even once the terms are finalized, the agreement will face several stages of review in the Iraqi government, culminating with what is expected to be a very difficult vote in the Iraqi parliament. Given the ever-widening array of forces united against the pact, it is unclear whether the Maliki government will even submit it for a vote. In the past Maliki has said he would only submit the draft to parliament if he was confident of two-thirds support.

SOFA faces increasingly thorny path in Iraqi parliament.

This is from antiwar.com.
It is not clear whether Maliki is just going to have cabinet ratify the agreement if he can't get a two thirds majority in parliament or just give up on the agreement. I assume the latter. It is rather ironic that in this case the Iraqi system is more accountable than the US system. Bush will not bring the agreement before US legislators. You would think there would be a huge outcry in the US about this, but I guess other issues are much more urgent.

SOFA Faces Increasingly Thorny Path in Iraqi Parliament
Posted October 16, 2008
The Bush Administration and Iraqi negotiators may have completed a final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), but its prospects for approval in the Iraqi parliament seem to grow more questionable by the minute.
Aides of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki say that he will only submit the agreement to parliament if he is convinced it will receive two thirds support, unlikely given the growing split between Maliki’s Dawa Party and rival Shi’ite faction the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The split may threaten the coalition government after the next round of elections, but votes on the controversial SOFA will likely be a first test of how strong the ties between the two remain.
But while Maliki hopes to keep his coalition together by reconciling with the bloc of MPs still loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they are unlikely to help the Prime Minister rescue the faltering SOFA before the December 31 deadline given outspoken opposition from Sadr’s supporters. The bloc was also invited to a meeting to discuss the pact, but declined to attend, claiming the pact aims at “legitimizing the presence of occupation troops” and that they don’t believe there is a reason for foreign troops to remain in the country.
If Iraq is unable to approve the SOFA by the deadline, they will reportedly consider asking the United Nations Security Council to renew its mandate for foreign forces to remain in the country. Getting Security Council approval for the continued presence may be difficult given the increasing tense relations between the United States and Russia.
US Senators have expressed concern with subjecting US troops to Iraqi legal jurisdiction for crimes committed off duty and off base, though Defense Secretary Robert Gates is attempting to reassure them that it provides “adequately” for the protection of troops. Administration officials have said repeatedly that they don’t intend to submit the deal to Congress for approval, making the Senate concerns little more than an aside.

US Iraq negotiators finalize SOFA but pact still faces approval by Cabinet and parliament.

Strange that the Pact is not publicly disclosed. Although this is a pact that will have consequences for all Iraqis it is apparently not the sort of thing that should be made public and discussed in newspapers etc. At least it seems that pact will go through the Iraqi parliament. The US legislature and senate on the other hand will not get to pass judgment on the pact! This is from antiwar.com.

US, Iraqi Negotiators Finalize SOFA, Pact Still Faces Long Road to Final Approval
Posted October 15, 2008
US and Iraqi officials say that the final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) has been completed, and has been submitted to Iraq’s political leadership for a long, arduous approval process. While the overall terms of the agreement were not publicly disclosed as of yet, they reportedly included a firm end of 2011 deadline (barring a future agreement) and an unspecified compromise agreement on the question of troop immunity.
While the Bush Administration insists that the president can approve the long-term deal without any Congressional oversight or approval, the road for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a complex one indeed. The draft must first be reviewed by a body of political leaders including Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, and several other high ranking officials. If they approve, it moves along to the Iraqi Cabinet for review.
But it doesn’t stop there. Even if Iraq’s Cabinet approves of the deal, it would then have to be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for final approval. There was talk, stemming from a previous draft of the agreement, that Prime Minister Maliki might bypass the final step of parliamentary approval. This seems highly unlikely at this point however, as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reportedly demanded that parliament be involved in the final decision.
There is no guarantee that parliament will sign off on the controversial agreement, which has much popular opposition. General Raymond Odierno has also accused Iran of attempting to bribe members of parliament in an attempt to influence any vote, but the Iraqi government slammed the general, saying it upsets relations with the Multi-National Troops.
If the Iraqi parliament doesn’t approve of the SOFA, the government has said it will consider approaching the United Nations Security Council to expand its mandate, which expires on December 31.

No accord yet on SOFA with Iraq.

THis is from the Washington Post.

The discussions began with the U.S. hardly ceding any authority to the Iraq govt. in key areas.



The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.



So much for creating a sovereign Iraq. Although many compromises were made the issue of complete US forces and defence employees immunity from Iraq law is one that the U.S. will not compromise on apparently. It remains to be seen what Plan B will be.



Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B
By Karen DeYoungWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, October 14, 2008; A01
With time running out for the conclusion of an agreement governing American forces in Iraq, nervous negotiators have begun examining alternatives that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Neither side finds the options attractive. One possibility is an extension of the United Nations mandate that expires at the end of the year. That would require a Security Council vote that both governments believe could be complicated by Russia or others opposed to the U.S.-led war. Another alternative would amount to a simple handshake agreement between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush to leave things as they are until a new deal, under a new U.S. administration, can be negotiated.
Negotiators have been stuck for months on the question of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and immunity for possible crimes. But even if the sides reach a deal in the next few days or weeks, it is not clear that a formal status-of-forces agreement could be approved by the end of the year. Maliki has pledged to submit an accord to Iraq's divided parliament before he signs it -- a promise he reaffirmed last week during a visit to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric. Sistani has said he will not endorse any document without the support of Iraq's population and political factions.
If the parliament refuses, Maliki would have "no choice" but to request a U.N. extension "because the American forces will lose their legal cover on Dec. 31," he told the Times of London in a weekend interview. "If that happens, according to international law, Iraqi law and American law, the U.S. forces will be confined to their bases and have to withdraw from Iraq," Maliki said.
U.S. officials do not dispute that the absence of an agreement would probably require an immediate end to combat operations and, at a minimum, confinement to bases on Jan. 1. Officials refused to discuss the sensitive issue on the record while negotiations are ongoing.
"I am actually reasonably optimistic we will come to closure on this in a very near future," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters Friday as he returned from a five-day trip to Europe. A month earlier, on Sept. 8, Gates told Congress that he expected an agreement "within the next few weeks."
"But I had hoped that some weeks ago," Gates added.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said yesterday that an accord is unlikely before the end of the year, citing the number of parties that must sign off on the deal. "I'm not sure that the time we have left is enough for all of these organizations to study it, revise it and agree on the text," Hashimi told McClatchy Newspapers.
Frustrated over what they consider Iraqi intransigence, administration officials have said Iranian meddling is keeping Shiite leaders from accommodating U.S. bottom lines. The government-sanctioned Iranian media have charged repeatedly that Washington is trying to force Maliki to sell out Iraqi sovereignty. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, with a bloc of supporters in Iraq's parliament and a powerful militia currently under a cease-fire, has called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.
Other Shiite political groups are divided over the deal, and some, including Maliki's Dawa party, disagree internally. But U.S. officials, uncertain of where Maliki really stands, tell themselves that ultimately he cannot afford for U.S. operations to shut down.
The U.S. military has repeatedly described security gains over the past year as "fragile" and "reversible." The main concerns, a senior officer said, are that the Sons of Iraq security forces -- largely Sunni groups now being paid by and under the control of the Maliki government -- will revert to insurgency and that "special groups" of Shiite militia members, tied to Iran, will relaunch an offensive in Baghdad and other population centers.
Maliki himself said Saturday that "a sudden withdrawal may harm security." But the game of chicken his government appears to be playing has continued as the U.S. election approaches. Any new administration, whether Republican or Democratic, would need to start negotiations from scratch, with different priorities on a possible withdrawal timeline and the ongoing mission for U.S. troops.
The Iraqi prime minister in August twice assured Bush -- once personally via videoconference and again through Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a visit to Baghdad -- that the deal was done, Iraqi and U.S. officials said. Since midsummer, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has made repeated public statements confirming agreement on a draft.
The prospect that no deal would be reached, or that negotiations would come so close to the wire, was unthinkable when talks began in March, four months after Bush and Maliki signed a declaration of principles outlining a future U.S. military presence in Iraq. The declaration set a deadline of July 31.
The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.
When the stalemate continued through May, Bush ordered U.S. negotiators to show more flexibility, and compromises were quickly reached giving Iraqis at least some say in U.S. operations and detentions. Joint control of airspace -- recognizing that Iraq was not yet capable of handling it alone and that U.S. controllers needed to be in charge of U.S. military aircraft -- was also worked out.
Disagreement then centered on a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki said that the end of 2010 was a reasonable goal, a public statement that appeared more consistent with the position of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- who has called for an even earlier withdrawal -- than that of Republican Sen. John McCain, who has opposed a firm timeline.
During Rice's Aug. 21 visit to Baghdad, the two sides agreed on withdrawal of combat forces by the end of 2011. But U.S. officials continue to speak of an "aspirational" date depending on ground conditions, while Maliki said Saturday that the agreement is for "final withdrawal by the end of 2011." Both have said that U.S. combat troops will be drawn back from Iraqi cities by mid-2009.
The two governments put an optimistic public spin on their progress, with Zebari previewing a political discussion among Iraqi parties and factions over an agreed draft, and the Americans congratulating Iraq on the health of its democracy. "There's actually a great debate about this right now," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Sept. 2. Maliki was determined to attain full Iraqi sovereignty and independence, Mullen said, and "that's one of the things that we've encouraged as his burgeoning democracy comes forward."
Behind the scenes, however, the negotiating teams remained deadlocked on a question that had long been set aside as too hard: whether the Iraqi government would have any legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department personnel. U.S. officials have consistently said that it is a redline issue for them, with no compromise possible over total U.S. jurisdiction.
Iraq's position seemed to have hardened by early September: Maliki fired his chief negotiator and "retired" most of the team the Americans had worked with throughout the summer, instead installing two officials seen as political confidants. The two senior U.S. negotiators -- David M. Satterfield of the State Department and Brett McGurk of the National Security Council -- took a break after months in Baghdad to regroup and seek new instructions.
Satterfield and McGurk returned to Baghdad two weeks ago with a new formulation of the U.S. demand that any alleged crime by U.S. defense personnel would be judged by U.S. courts and U.S. law. For major offenses committed off-base and outside U.S. military operations, the Iraqi judiciary would have consultative input.
On Saturday, Maliki outlined a somewhat different position. "If Iraqi and American soldiers move in an operation that is pre-agreed by both sides, then they have immunity unless [an American] commits a deliberate crime during the operation."
"The sticking point," he said, "is about if the American soldier was not on a mission and commits a crime that is accountable to the Iraqi judicial system, whether small or big. The Iraqi judicial system should have jurisdiction over the American soldier. This is the point of difference."