U.S. fears Iraq election violence could slow pullout.

Certainly the US will, in spite of its denial, try to influence the horsetrading after the election. They already tried their best but unsuccessfully to derail Ahmed Chalabi's ban on many candidates. There is increasing violent and it would seem that Al Qaeda and allied groups are more active. It may be that they are being joined by disgruntled Sunnis.

U.S. Fears Election Strife in Iraq Could Affect Pullout


By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER


WASHINGTON — The deadly suicide bombings in Iraq on Wednesday highlight the central quandary facing President Obama as he tries to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the war there: Will parliamentary elections, scheduled for Sunday, throw the country back into the sectarian strife that flared in 2004 and delay the planned American withdrawal?

Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »
Related

Murky Candidacy Stokes Iraq’s Sectarian Fears (March 4, 2010)
Bombers Kill Dozens as Iraq Vote Nears (March 4, 2010)
Times Topic: Iraq Elections
Senior Obama administration officials maintained in interviews this week that Mr. Obama’s plan to withdraw all American combat troops by Sept. 1 would remain on track regardless of who cobbles together a governing coalition after the election. Under the plan, no more than 50,000 American forces would stay behind, mostly in advisory roles. (Now there are slightly more than 90,000 troops in the country, down from 124,000 in September.)

But administration officials also acknowledged that the bigger worry for the United States was not who would win the elections, but the possibility that the elections — and their almost certainly messy aftermath — could ignite violence that would, at the least, complicate the planned withdrawal.

In part for that reason, “we’re not leaving behind cooks and quartermasters,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Wednesday in a telephone interview. The bulk of the remaining American troops, he said, “will still be guys who can shoot straight and go get bad guys.”

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American military commander in Iraq, has drawn up a contingency plan that would keep a combat brigade in northern Iraq beyond the Sept. 1 deadline, should conditions warrant, administration officials said. Kirkuk and the restive Kurdish area in the north remain major concerns for American military planners.


At a time when Mr. Obama has already angered his liberal base by ramping up the number of American troops in Afghanistan and missing his own deadline to shut down the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, even the appearance that he has fudged the troop drawdown in Iraq could set off a rebellion as Democrats face difficult midterm elections.

T
With no party expected to get a majority, or even a strong plurality, analysts foresee intense horse trading, with factions like the Kurds trying to play kingmaker as diverse groups attempt to cobble together coalitions.

Mr. Hill emphasized that the United States did not want to get drawn into postelection wrangling among Kurdish, Shiite or Sunni parties. He and General Odierno have already been criticized in some quarters in Iraq for speaking about Iran’s influence in the election process.

“Assuming that everything is going to go off fine, we will execute our withdrawal as we advertised,” Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, said Tuesday in an interview. It would take a “proactive national decision” by Mr. Obama to divert from the withdrawal plan, he said, adding, “The military always thinks through different options in how we might react.”

Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.

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.
.

Maliki wants U.S. pullout timetable.

This is from the Nation.
The U.S. media seems to be neglecting this developing story of the crisis in the US-Iraq treaty or Status of Forces agreement. For the Bush administration it is not a treaty. In fact as the article points out it is nowhere near being anything and may end up not being signed. That this should be regarded as a stunner is significant for what it shows about the U.S. frame of mind. There is never a thought that the Iraqis might determine when and at what speed the U.S. withdraws from Iran. Discussion in the U.S. is always between presidential contenders as to how the U.S. should withdraw as if Iraq had nothing to do with the matter except perhaps in terms of the readiness of their forces to take over security! The arrogance is stunning but completely below the radar of commentators.
Of course Maliki probably comes out with this pronouncement to bolster his political capital before the fall elections.

Maliki Stunner: He Wants US Pullout Timetable
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 07/07/2008 @ 12:21pm
The long-running showdown over the proposed US-Iraq treaty, aimed at legitimizing the American occupation of Iraq, is coming to a head, and it doesn't look good for the United States.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord.
More important, Maliki and his top security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie added that Iraq intends to link even a limited accord to a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Reports the Sydney Morning Herald:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.
It was the first time the US-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would benefit militant groups.
Here's the quote from Maliki:
"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal."
Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."
Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.
But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.