Unresolved issues in the security negotiations and less violence may lead to a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq, writes Saif Nasrawi Boosted by recent Iraqi military successes, Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki suggested for the first time Monday that Baghdad was seeking a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq as part of its negotiations with Washington on a security pact that will enable American forces to stay in Iraq beyond 2008. During his visit to the United Arab Emirates, Al-Maliki told Arab ambassadors there that Iraq wants to reach a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which is currently being negotiated with Washington to provide a legal basis to US troops to stay in Iraq after 31 December, when their United Nations mandate expires. Al-Maliki's remarks came amid intense negotiations between Iraq and US officials over the agreement which the majority of Iraqi Shias view as infringing on their country's sovereignty. Just few hours later, the White House tried to emphasise that it is not negotiating a "hard date" for a US withdrawal from Iraq, stating however that setting a "time frame" for American military presence in Iraq has already been part of the discussions with the Iraqi government. "As Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker has said, we are looking at conditions, and not calendars -- and both sides are in agreement on this point," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. He noted that part of negotiating an agreement is the presumption that there would be "some understanding of time frames". "The government's assessment is that the Iraqi troops are now capable of taking over security responsibilities with the minimum possible involvement by US troops," a government official told Al-Ahram Weekly. He added that Al-Maliki is well aware of the domestic pressure on US President George Bush's administration by the Congress and the American public to set a schedule for withdrawal. "We think it's not wise to reach an agreement with a president who has only six months in office," he said. The democratic-dominated Congress has repeatedly expressed fears that any Iraq-US agreement would tie the hands of the next president. Democratic leaders have insisted that the agreement must be submitted to the Congress for its approval. A senior government official told the Weekly that both Iraqi and US officials are concerned that a possible victory by the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in the November elections might mean a change in US policy in Iraq. He clarified that given the unresolved issues at the negotiation table, Baghdad and Washington are currently discussing a memorandum of understanding rather than a status of forces agreement as a way to avoid internal opposition in both countries. He said that negotiations over a withdrawal timetable are "still in their early stage", clarifying that "the talks are now focussed more on reaching a short-term agreement for a year or two so that both governments could accept without serious opposition." Obama has long criticised the Iraqi government for not taking serious steps towards political reconciliation, arguing that a timetable would force integrating the Arab Sunnis into the political process. The Illinois senator welcomed Monday the Iraqi government's suggestion for a timetable for US troop withdrawal. "I think that Prime Minister AL-Maliki's statement is consistent with my view about how withdrawals should proceed and how a status of forces agreement should not be structured without congressional input and should not be rushed," he told NBC. He added that, "the concern that I've had has been that this administration negotiates with the Iraqis, signs something up that binds future administrations that isn't going before Congress and that does not have a clear pathway for US troops to get out of Iraq." Although Obama has long pledged to complete the withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months of taking office, he has recently softened his position with a promise to consult with US commanders on the ground before taking any action. Meanwhile, USA Today reported Monday that the United States may significantly cut its military presence in Iraq next year regardless of who is elected president because of improving security in the country. Citing military experts and recent official statements, the newspaper said, however, that US commanders remained cautious about predicting further withdrawals. Jack Keane, a retired army vice chief of staff, anticipated that there will be "significant reductions in 2009 whoever becomes president." Four of the five extra brigades sent to Iraq last year as part of the surge have already left the country, while the last unit is scheduled to leave this month. Even after five combat brigades leave, about 140,000 US troops will remain in Iraq. Reaching a short-term security agreement would also strengthen Al-Maliki's position against his main rival in the upcoming provincial elections, Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, who has long called for a timetable. Liwaa Smesam, a leading member in the Sadrist movement, welcomed Al-Maliki's suggestion of a timetable, saying that the Sadrist block in Iraqi parliament will support any agreement that includes a timetable. Iraqi and US officials, who began the security talks in March, are still quarrelling over the pivotal issues under negotiation, including the capacity for US troops to carry out military operations and arrests of Iraqis without Baghdad's prior permission, and legal immunity for American troops.
