August 21, 2008 at 6:37 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq
BAGHDAD – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday they agree that timetables should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country.
Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari also mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a a broad document spelling out the nature of any future U.S. troop presence and Washington-Baghdad relations is close to fruition, but not yet complete.
“We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement,” Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.
Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: “This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. … There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this.”
A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s cities by next June 30.
Said Zebari: “This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces.”
U.S. military forces went into in Iraq in early 2003 and overthrew President Saddam Hussein and the war is now in its sixth year. There have been more than 4,100 U.S. deaths there and countless losses among Iraqis. The war looms as a key issue in the campaign in the United States to elect a successor to President Bush, with presumed Republican nominee John McCain accusing Democratic standardbearer-in-waiting Barack Obama of advocating too precipitate a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country.
On the plane en route here, Rice had told reporters: “The negotiators have taken this very, very far. But there is no reason to believe that there is an agreement yet. There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate.”
Her comments dampened speculation that agreement might be reached while she is in Baghdad on a several-hour visit, her first to Iraq since March, after U.S. and Iraqi officials said Wednesday that a draft document was done and awaiting approval from political leaders.
Rice displayed similar caution in the news conference with Zebari.
“Obviously, the American forces are here, coalition forces are here at the invitation of the Iraqi government,” she said. “What we’re trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, respects Iraq’s sovereignty.”
” … But the goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq,” Rice added. “That is the goal and that has been the goal from the beginning. ” She said the military surge has worked and “we are making progress together in the defeat of Iraq’s enemies of all stripes.”
“We’re not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation,” Rice said, calling the agreement one that “builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success.”
Zebari conceded that officials had hoped to conclude the pact earlier, but said that “it has taken us more time,” citing internal political factors.
“Really, we are very, very close to closing this agreement,” he said, “and as we said from the beginning, there is no hidden agenda here.”
The foreign minister said the pact that U.S. and Iraqi officials are trying to finish will be presented to Iraq’s Executive Council for review. “Time is of the essence,” he said, “but, really, we are redoubling our efforts to bring this to a successful conclusion.”
Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr criticized Rice’s visit and repeated their opposition to the security agreement. Sadr’s followers control 30 of the 275 seats in parliament.
Luai Smeisem, the head of the political bureau in Sadr movement, said: “We as the Sadr movement denounce this dubious visit and such timing. We reaffirm our stance of rejecting the long-term agreement. We demand the Iraqi government, and on the highest levels, not to sign this unjust agreement and we demand the withdrawal of the government as soon as possible.”
Much sooner then I expected, i can already see whats going to happen once they leave. 🙁
By: crobato - 27th August 2008 at 02:27
Reduced violence only means that the bad guys are staying low or moved elsewhere (and can come back). It can also mean, which is the part of the strategy, that agreements have been brokered with the Sunnis, which you will need as a counterweight against the Shiites. It does not mean that the problem is resolved (potential for wide scale ethnic violence ala Kosovo/Serbia.) Historically, insurgency, especially Islamic ones, can stay there forever. The US first encounter Moslem insurgency via the Moros in the Philippines in the early 1900s (why the 1911 handgun was made), and their descendants of that insurgency, under names like the MNLF, are still there a straight century after, despite training and arming the Philippine armed forces. Personally however, is the insurgency does not appear to be in danger of toppling the government, then let the local government handle it. Concern yourself elsewhere. We once thought that the Taliban was finished, now they’re coming back. Exactly like my first sentence. But you can always bring back forces if problems escalate.
The new Iraq is getting too attached to the US via an umbilical cord. That cord has to be cut and the only way to know if they can make it on their own, is let them go.
By: Primate - 26th August 2008 at 10:46
I haven’t been paying much attention to Iraq lately. I’ve read reports saying that the increase in coalition ground forces has been successful in terms of reduced violence. Is the transition of responsibility from the coalition to Iraqi forces going well?
By: crobato - 26th August 2008 at 03:52
Stay too long, and Iraq, like a grown child, may become permanently—and parasitically—dependent on you. That won’t be good for you on the long run in economic terms.
By: Hornchurch - 26th August 2008 at 02:36
They will still be near by… just accross the border… in Iran :diablo::diablo:
Choice riposte !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: plough - 22nd August 2008 at 20:08
[QUOTE=Jet 22;1288546]….pull out and let the powers of the country do what they want.
QUOTE]
Sadly, that is the reason they went there in the first place.
By: SOC - 22nd August 2008 at 19:22
i can already see whats going to happen once they leave.
While I think we have an obligation to at least be willing to remain there and fix the mess we created, if they want us out, we should leave. They have to figure out how to deal with running their own affairs and handling their own problems eventually.
By: Jet 22 - 22nd August 2008 at 16:04
About time gordan brown pulled his finger out, and pulled out of iraq to. We have been in there too long, pull out and let the powers of the country do what they want.
Troops will be better deployed in places such as Afghanistan.
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd August 2008 at 15:26
That’s not bad news, that’s good news. Maybe our budget will get better here.
Ryan
By: J Boyle - 22nd August 2008 at 14:40
Much sooner then I expected, i can already see whats going to happen once they leave. 🙁
If you’re that worried about it, feel free to take their place. :diablo:
By: DJ. - 22nd August 2008 at 07:53
They will still be near by… just accross the border… in Iran :diablo::diablo: