Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

[yogib37 3]

BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

Some type of troop status agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

[tmma 467]

BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal.

However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

Some type of troop status agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

The bolded and red part is what withdrawl 'timeline' will be dependent on....And they know that... They have to control their own provinces . The sooner they get their ####### together and start policing their own people enforcing their own laws, the sooner we can get the heck out of there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder what would happen if the Iraqi government voted for immediate withdrawal of troops. Could we refuse such a request without turning ourselves into militaristic occupiers?

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I wonder what would happen if the Iraqi government voted for immediate withdrawal of troops. Could we refuse such a request without turning ourselves into militaristic occupiers?

That might be the best solution for the U.S. since if the Iraq government takes full responsibility for the future of their country, the U.S. government can spin it as being the fault of the Iraq government, even if that might not be entirely true.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder what would happen if the Iraqi government voted for immediate withdrawal of troops. Could we refuse such a request without turning ourselves into militaristic occupiers?

That might be the best solution for the U.S. since if the Iraq government takes full responsibility for the future of their country, the U.S. government can spin it as being the fault of the Iraq government, even if that might not be entirely true.

I doubt too many people would buy that - the thing has gotten so much exposure that no amount of spinning could deflect the blame. The politicians are simply doing what they always do and playing a game of pass the parcel and hoping that some other ####### gets lumbered with the blame for it happening on "their watch".

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

i guess that answers that question we had in vj not too long ago.