The U.S. has abandoned efforts to reach a Status of Forces Agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of his term essentially leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.
The failure in negotiations deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military presence in Iraq that could last for years.
After months of negotiations and the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms, most prominently the unresolved issue of the U.S. insistence of granting legal immunity to U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi prosecution for any alleged crime Washington to halted talks pertaining to a long term agreement. Washington has bent to Iraqi refusal to grant immunity to private contractors, such as Blackwater, an issue that is controversial because of incidents in which American security contractors have killed Iraqi civilians. Other less significant compromises have been made on other difficult questions, such as the formation of joint U.S.-Iraqi commissions to oversee unilateral U.S. combat operations to allow an element of Iraqi oversight.
According to senior U.S. officials, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year. U.S. officials are hoping that the limited agreement will allow them to
sidestep issues that have impeded completion of a broader agreement. Even the title of the new deal faces complications. The Baghdad government calls it “A Memorandum of Understanding” while the U.S. refers to it as a “Temporary Operating Protocol”.
Unlike the
status-of-forces agreements between the United States and countries such as South Korea and Japan, where large numbers of U.S. troops have been based for decades, the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009.
Iraqi officials in turn are expecting it to include a timeline with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad. Iraqi’s also wants the U.S. to relinquish its control of installations such as the former Saddam Hussein palace that now houses the U.S. Embassy.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his political allies have recently faced
pressure from Iraqi citizens to reject any infringement of Iraqi sovereignty. Prime Minister Maliki, who last week publicly insisted on a withdrawal timeline, wants to frame the agreement in the terms for "Americans leaving Iraq" rather than the conditions under which they will stay, said the U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S.-Iraqi negotiations are ongoing.
While The White House has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, calls from
Iraqi officials have become publicly more vocal about the issue of timelines in addition to sovereignty and security issues in recent weeks.
"There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under Iraqi control. We would not accept any memorandum of understanding with (the U.S.) side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops' withdrawal from Iraq."
— Iraq National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie
"If the occupation forces leave today, the situation will improve tomorrow for two reasons. The first is that the occupation is like a magnet for terrorism. The second is that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion placed U.S. forces close to Syria and Iran and that caused negative reactions that made Iraq pay the price.
—Nasar al-Rubaie, Senior Sadrist member of parliament.
