From Times Online

October 21, 2008

Iraqi MPs demand changes to US troop withdrawal agreement

Deborah Haynes in Baghdad

The Iraqi Cabinet dealt a blow today to a draft agreement to allow US forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of the year, demanding changes to the document to make it more acceptable.

The nature of the amendments were not specified, but Iraqi MPs said there are concerns about the lack of a guaranteed date for US forces to withdraw. Another worry is whether Iraqi courts would in practice be able to try US soldiers who commit serious crimes. There are even gripes about differing interpretations in parts of the US and the Arabic versions of the draft accord.

The Cabinet's decision, following a five-and-a-half-hour meeting, is a major setback for the Bush administration, which wants to seal the accord before a United Nations Security Council mandate, authorising the presence of foreign forces in the country, expires on December 31.

It is also a problem for Britain, which aims to base its status of forces agreement with Baghdad on the US-Iraq pact.

Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government spokesman, said: "The Cabinet has agreed that necessary amendments to the pact could make it nationally accepted."

Ministers would continue to discuss the issue over the coming days, he said, adding that they "will give their opinions and consult and provide the amendments suggested. Then this will be given to the American negotiating team". No timeframe was offered on when this would happen.

The draft text, which sets out a conditions-based timeline for US troops to pull out of cities by next summer and leave Iraq by the end of 2011, had only last week been described as a "final draft" following months of tense negotiations.

The demand for changes further delays the approval process, throwing into question whether an agreement will be finalised by the year-end deadline. The deal should originally have been struck by the end of July. Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister, was quoted saying that it would not be approved by Parliament, which has the final say, before the US election on November 4.

As a last resort, Iraq can go to the United Nations to request an emergency extension of the mandate to buy more time -- an option that the United States does not favour.

Revealing the extent of concern about the accord, Humam Hamoudi, a leading member of parliament from the majority Shia alliance, said Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, was among those voicing doubts in recent days.

"The Prime Minister said: what [the Americans] have given with the right hand they have taken away with the left hand," Mr Hamoudi told a news conference. "For example, they said the US forces will withdraw from towns by June 2009 if the security situation permits that. But who will decide that?"

Another problem was translation. Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP, said there were different interpretations of certain sections written in Arabic and English. Demands have been made for the Arabic and US translations of the text to match more accurately, he added.

Kurdish MP Adil Barwari, a member of the defence and security committee in the Iraqi Parliament, said that MPs were also worried about the chance of Iraqi territory being used to threaten neighbouring countries, something that US officials stress would never be the case.

"In addition, there is some ambiguity about some of the articles and we want clarifications from the American side. For example how will a US soldier be held accountable by Iraqi courts when they commit a crime outside their bases," he told The Times.

The only way a US service member could face an Iraqi judge, according to the draft agreement, would be if he or she committed a grave offence while off-duty and off-base.

Mr Barwani, like most Kurdish MPs, however, supports the pact in its current form, noting that he wanted "to have it today better than tomorrow".

Admiral Michael Mullen, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iraq needed the accord because its military "will not be ready to provide for their security".

He added: "In that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence."

In a show of force against the pact at the weekend, tens of thousands of Iraqi followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shia cleric, marched through the streets of Baghdad , demanding that US forces leave the country now.

Iran, which has a close relationship with Iraq's Shia-led Government, is also opposed to the deal. General Ray Odierno, the new commander of US forces in Iraq, has accused Tehran of offering bribes to Iraqi politicians to vote against the accord. His comments to the Washington Post were later clarified to stress that he did not mean Iraqi MPs accepted the bribes.

All this after the following article days earlier:

Oct 16 Time Online.

US bows to Iraqi demands over troop withdrawal

(Thaier al-Sudani/Reuters)

If a deal is not reached by December 31, US troops will have no legal status

America appeared to bow to demands by Baghdad about the future status of its troops in Iraq yesterday, apparently agreeing that they must leave the country in three years’ time and could face prosecution in an Iraqi court if they broke the law.

According to US and Iraqi officials, negotiators from the two sides have agreed the wording of a draft document that will redefine radically the relationship between the 150,000 US forces and their Iraqi hosts.

The deal, yet to be approved by Iraqi leaders, the Cabinet and parliament, must be in place by December 31, when the existing UN Security Council mandate expires.

An agreement between the two sides would open the way for a separate arrangement to allow 4,000 British Forces and other smaller coalition members to remain in Iraq.

The US State Department confirmed that a “text” was being considered but that it was not finalized. “Nothing is done until everything is done. Everything isn’t done,” a spokesman said. “The Iraqis are still talking among themselves. We are still talking to the Iraqis. The process is not complete.”

The document stipulates that US forces must be out of Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and leave the country altogether by the end of 2011, unless the Iraqis ask them to stay. “The withdrawal will be achieved in three years,” Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said. “In 2011 the government at that time will determine whether it needs a new pact or not, and what type of pact will depend on the challenges it faces.”

By far the most contentious issue is the question of immunity, which American forces and Pentagon civilian contractors currently enjoy. Mr al-Dabbagh said that from January 1 Iraq would be able to prosecute US troops if they committed crimes outside their bases while off duty or on unauthorised missions. They could be held under US custody but would have to appear for questioning by Iraqi investigators and for trial in an Iraqi court.

Iraqis have been enraged by a series of atrocities committed by US forces, who in their eyes appeared to get away with murder. In the most notorious case a 14-year-old girl was raped and killed by US paratroopers and three members of her family murdered in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad. Four soldiers have pleaded guilty in a US court and a fifth, Steven Dale Green, is due to stand trial next year.

If a deal is not in place by the end of the year, US forces would have no legal status and would be confined to barracks until they could be withdrawn. The other alternative is simply to roll over the UN Security Council resolution, though Washington is concerned that a more assertive Russia could wield its veto to block the move.

While an agreement now seems more likely, it is by no means sure. Hardline Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslim groups, who want all foreign forces out of the country immediately, are expected to vote against the agreement. Iran, which wields considerable influence in Iraq, is also lobbying hard for a “no” vote.

The new agreement reflects the increasingly prominent role played by the 600,000 Iraqi soldiers and police in securing their country. However, American firepower, particularly in the air, remains a decisive weapon in the battle against the insurgency.

Yesterday US forces claimed to have killed Abu Qaswarah, a Moroccan national and al-Qaeda’s second in command in Iraq, after a raid on a house in the northern city of Mosul.

Later the Swedish police said that a Swedish man of Moroccan origin, who had links to al-Qaeda’s leadership, was also killed in northern Iraq in a firefight with American forces.