Well, here we go.

Iraq is challenging the Bush administration on it's desire for a permanent military presence in Iraq and the administration is caving in, punting the problem off to the next adminstration.

While the Bush administration has always insisted a time-line for withdrawl is a bad idea and has envisioned a presence in Iraq as a permanent bulwark against Iran, they're caught now in a web of their own making.

They've ballyhooed the idea that Iraq will be a self-sufficient democracy, able to chart it's own course and preserve it's own integrity, but now that it's really happening, they're willing to spin all that past verbiage and accept a so-called "bridge" agreement instead of what they wanted in the first place.

The sad fact is that the Maliki governments position isn't driven by either patriotism or American interests nearly so much as it's driven by IRANIAN interests.

It is IRAN who is telling us, "You won't get what you wanted. There will be NO permanent American presence here. You will leave when we say you should leave and your leaving will make us the defacto power in the region. And all it cost you for our ascendence is 4000+ lives and nearly a trillion dollars in debt!"

What a deal!



U.S. and Iraq near a 'bridge' deal on status of U.S. troops


By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 14, 2008 edition

Page 1 of 3

Reporter Sam Dagher discusses negotiations over the status of US troops in Iraq next year - and beyond.
BAGHDAD - By the end of July, US and Iraqi officials hope to finalize a deal that would map out the role and length of stay for US troops in the country.

But this is likely to be a temporary "bridge" agreement, including specific goals for terms of US withdrawal from major cities, followed by further talks on a long-term status of forces agreement (SOFA), says a senior US administration official involved in the talks here.

The US shift to a short-term deal follows comments last week by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of US troops. On Saturday, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that "we need a timetable for withdrawal" and that the US should not commit to a long-term occupation of Iraq,

But a key question is whether any deal can be sold to Iraq's political factions in an election year. The Iraqi government is beset by divisions and conflicting agendas with regard to the status of US forces that are playing out both in the media and in private.

There is strong opposition to any deal from the influential *****e cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as well as from Iran, which exercises large sway over *****e factions inside and outside the government and objects to any US troop presence in Iraq.

"We are going to a new process.... The conversation [with the Iraqis] is how we package this in a way that meets [Iraq's] political challenge," says the US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the politically sensitive nature of the negotiations. "I think we can get there…. At least have it [agreement] in good shape [by end of July]."

Several senior Iraqi officials close to the talks also see a similar scenario. "We are discussing a framework agreement and it could be agreed upon by the end of the month," says Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful *****e politician who heads parliament's defense committee. He is a member of Iraq's Political Council for National Security, a body that includes Iraq's president and his two deputies, the prime minister and his two deputies, the speaker of parliament, and the heads of the main parliamentary blocs.

This council could make or break any deal and it is expected to meet in the coming days to discuss the specifics of the agreement, according to Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish parliamentarian.

When the SOFA talks were launched in March, also under discussion was a broader, framework document outlining the political, economic, and security relationship between the US and Iraq. While the SOFA pact is being postponed, the framework document is expected to be completed soon with an appendix that temporarily governs the status of US forces until a full SOFA is reached, say US and Iraqi officials.

For Washington, the three most important components of any agreement, according to the administration official, is the ability of US troops to operate in concert with Iraqi forces in what is still considered until now a "combat environment," retain the right to detain anyone deemed a security threat, and continue to be afforded immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The US side is also eager to clinch a deal before the end of President Bush's term. SOFAs are "tedious and complex," take on average two years to negotiate, and require Congressional approval, says the US official. He notes that the SOFA with Israel took seven years to conclude. The bridge agreement under discussion now would be "legally binding" in many respects and only require Bush's signature, says the official.

Although the US has indicated that it would be willing to consider dropping the immunity enjoyed by private security contractors as a concession to Iraqis, it's not clear yet how this would work in practice since firms like Aegis, Blackwater, and others are now an integral component of US military and intelligence operations in Iraq.

On the other hand, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is eager to demonstrate its nationalist credentials to Iraqis and prove that any deal with the Americans replacing their current UN-sanctioned mandate, which expires on Dec. 31, will contradict what some of Maliki's political enemies are saying and bring Iraq a more robust sovereignty.

This was underscored last week when Maliki during a landmark visit to the United Arab Emirates asserted that any agreement would have to include either a timetable for withdrawal or full withdrawal of US forces.

His remarks were later echoed by several of his *****e aides. "The Iraqi negotiators enjoy the trust of their people and can crush the unrealistic ambitions of the Americans in this agreement," boasted Hassan al-Snaid, one of Maliki's senior partisans, on state-owned Iraqiya TV.

The US official concedes that Washington may have overplayed its hand with some of its opening positions in March, which he says gave opponents of the treaty, particularly Iran, ammunition to "poison" the talks.

"Some of our opening positions were up here," he says. "It looked like we were trying to lock up the status quo through this bilateral arrangement."

But he's quick to add that these are negotiations and that it's natural for each side to aim to maximize their gains. As an example of Iran's alleged meddling in the talks, the official says Iraqis had asked the Americans to provide them with an idea of where in the country they envisioned being stationed in the first quarter of 2009. The US official says the preliminary response was possibly 58 locations. But this was leaked to the media and spun as "we were seeking 58 permanent bases," thereby fueling Iran's alleged "sophisticated cooked-up propaganda campaign."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0714/p01s11-wome.html

Whichever Iraqi party that gets the reputation of "They got the americans to leave" will win lotsa popularity points with Iraqi voters.

While the Maliki government is not our western ideal, they are savvy on local politics, and they should be capable of creating a stable government. I wish them the best of luck.

As a consolation price the american public may appreciate that they most likely will only have to pay for a fraction of the promished "rebuilding of everything destroyed i this war".