Thread: Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline

Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline
Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:34pm EDT

* Iraq demands "very clear timeline" for U.S. withdrawal

By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The United States must provide a "very clear timeline" to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.

It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general "time horizon" and "aspirational goals" to withdraw.

Iraq's leaders have become more confident of their ability to provide security as the country has become safer. But attacks which killed at least 15 people on Sunday, including a U.S. soldier, were a reminder it is still a violent place.

In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was "very close" and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.

Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: "No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline."

"The talks are still ongoing. There's been a great deal of progress. The deal is very close. It is about to be closed," Zebari said of the agreement, which will replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the U.S. presence, which expires at the end of this year.

A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington's wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq's deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any deal if this condition were granted.

Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.

"Our negotiators have really found compromises on all these issues."

ASSERTIVE STANCE

He would not be drawn on the precise dates that Iraqi negotiators are seeking for withdrawal, saying the document was not yet final. Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all U.S. combat troops out by October 2010.

An agreement that included that date would require the Bush administration effectively to accept a timeline almost identical to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 invasion.

"You may hear many dates, but I caution you not to take any of these dates until you get the final document," Zebari said.

Iraq has taken an increasingly assertive stance in negotiations with the United States after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's forces scored military victories against militia groups this year, giving the government a confidence boost.

The high price of oil means the Iraqi treasury has more money for reconstruction projects than it can figure out how to spend, and violence is at a four-year low.

Still, U.S. commanders say they worry that a hasty withdrawal could allow violence to resume.

An attack on Sunday involving a roadside bomb, a suicide bomber and small arms fire in the town Tamirya, just north of Baghdad, killed a U.S. soldier, four Iraqi civilians and wounded 23 people, including two American soldiers.

In Khanaqin, another town north of Baghdad, a suicide bomber blew up a bomb-laden minibus, killing three people and wounding at least 20. Five roadside bomb attacks in or near Baghdad on Sunday killed a total of seven people and wounded at least 23.

Iraqi politics have been paralysed by a dispute over the northern city of Kirkuk, which Kurds claim as the capital of their autonomous homeland. The issues threatens to stoke ethnic tensions between the city's Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen.

That quarrel scuppered a law needed to allow provincial elections across the country, despite intensive lobbying by the United States and United Nations to reach a deal. (Writing by Peter Graff, editing by David Clarke and Mary Gabriel)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLA512304

Thank you, Iraq! First for wanting to end this war on false pretenses, and secondly for putting your foot down and saying no more.

Decision time for the elitists? What to do next- attack Iran?

vmonkey56, of course we are going to attack Iran or Russia or, or, or...
One must realize that if the Pentagon doesn't conduct a war somewhere then Congress won't be sympathetic enough to give them more and more money in their budget. And if they haven't spent all money Congress allotted them, there is fear that their budget could be reduced, and they couldn't buy all the nifty new inventions for conducting war.

I would say the border? Dare we dream?

Paige. I think you made a valid point about the way in which both parties view illegals.

However, I have been following very closely the way in which our politicians have been voting and have discovered that the majority of Republicans have voted against Amnesty and related issues. And the Democrats have pushed the agenda forward. I have to say that I was quite disillusioned with the Democratic Party when I made this discovery because I had previously thought that the Democrats were the Party that represented and cared about the every day American citizen…. I was wrong. Only a handful of Democrats are against Amnesty and/or vote in favor of the American people over the illegals. Check this out for yourself…..go to www.Senate.org. www.numbersusa.com and/or www.Congress.org. And look up bills having to do with Amnesty….and count the number of Politicians in each party that has consistently voted for and against Amnesty. This has been an eye-opening experience for me!

I feel sorry for our troops and their families.....they seem to be taking all the risks and carrying all the burdens....while our political leaders fight over the legitimacy of the war! I feel sad and also proud of our brave solders. God Bless them! I pray that our politicians leaders made a decision soon that favors the welfare of our troops!