Petraeus will never declare victory in Iraq

The general in charge of American soldiers in Iraq has given a mixed assessment of progress in the country.

General David Petraeus says that while the country is in better shape than it was at the start of last year it still faces serious problems.

General Petraeus has overseen the so-called "surge" of American combat troops into Iraq and he is about to leave to take on a more senior role leading US Central Command.

He says the fabric of Iraqi society was being torn apart by "horrific" violence and he would never declare victory there.

"This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan," he said.

However, as security has improved American combat troops could be moved out of a number of major cities, including Baghdad.

When asked whether US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".

The outgoing commander told the BBC that Al Qaeda's battle in Iraq is "going poorly", despite the group's claims to be doing well.

But General Petraeus also says there are still "many storm clouds on the horizon that could develop into real problems".

He is about to become the head of the US Central Command, a post that will also oversee Afghanistan, where American troops are now being sent in greater numbers.

Iraq Rejects No-Bid Contracts

The Iraqi government has decided to scrap plans to award no-bid short-term advisory and technical support contracts to a handful of Western oil companies, Iraqi officials said this week.

The companies -- including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total and British Petroleum -- are expected to submit bids in coming weeks for deals that the Iraqi government hopes will boost exploration and output in its oil fields, which have been hampered by years of war. Industry analysts said the short-term contracts could have helped companies win more lucrative exploration and development deals.

The Iraqi government informed the companies about its decision this month, said Assem Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq's Oil Ministry.

He said the ministry decided to end the talks because they had dragged on for too long. But he said Iraq looks forward to working with those companies in the future.

"We don't have a negative attitude toward any company," he said. "The ministry decided that due to the delay, it was better to cancel this idea."

The oil companies were not surprised by the Iraqi decision, given the political sensitivities raised by the issue, according to an executive at one of the five companies. Speaking on the condition that he not be identified further, the executive said the deals had become less attractive because Iraqi officials had shortened the proposed length of the contracts from two years to one in response to criticism.

China's national oil company last month became the first company to sign a major oil deal with Iraq since the war began in 2003. The 20-year deal with China's National Petroleum Corp., which revives a similar contract negotiated while Saddam Hussein was in power, is expected to increase output in one of Iraq's largest oil fields.
ad_icon

This week, Iraqi officials announced that they intend to sign a contract with Shell to capture and make use of natural gas that is now burned off during oil production in southern Iraq. The deal, which could be worth as much as $4 billion, has been approved by Iraq's parliament and could be signed as early as next week, Jihad said.

According to the proposed agreement, Iraq would keep 51 percent of the proceeds, and Shell would keep the rest.

Iraq is enormously attractive to oil companies, as the price of the resource has soared and oil-rich countries such as Venezuela and Russia have increasingly nationalized their oil industries. But violence and political turmoil -- Iraqi lawmakers have yet to agree on a hydrocarbon law-- have given oil executives pause.

How George W Bush stared down his generals in Iraq

George W Bush trusted his generals in the early years of the Iraq War. But in 2006, he smelled failure with their main goals of Arabisation and troop withdrawals, and set in train an eventual escalation, bypassing the usual chain of command. So far, the US President appears to have been right. Bob Woodward reveals how the surge came about and why it has been succeeding, as Bush faces his last months in office

HALFWAY through the sixth year of his US presidency and more than three years into the Iraq War, George W. Bush stood on a veranda of the American embassy compound in Baghdad. He had flown through the night for a surprise visit to the new Iraqi Prime Minister. It was June 13, 2006. With so much at stake in Iraq, where success or failure had become the core of his legacy, Bush had been anxious to meet the man he had, in many ways, been waiting for since the invasion.

It was now evening. A hazy sunset had descended over the sweltering, violent capital. The President stepped aside for a private conversation with US Army General George W. Casey Jr, the 57-year-old commander of the 150,000 U.S. forces in the country. A 5-foot-8 (173cm), four-star general with wire-rim glasses, closely cropped graying hair and a soft voice, Casey had been the commander in Iraq for two years.

As American military units rotated in and out, rarely serving more than a year, Casey had remained the one constant, seeing it all, trying to understand - and end - this maddening war in this maddening land.

Recently, there had been some positive news in Iraq. A week earlier, US forces had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man Osama bin Laden had declared the “Prince of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq” and the terrorist organisation's in-country operational commander. And the previous month, after three elections and months of delay, Nouri al-Maliki finally had taken office as the country's first permanent Prime Minister. Now, in the warm Baghdad dusk, the President and the general lit thin cigars.

“We have to win,” Bush insisted, repeating his public and private mantra. Casey had heard the President's line dozens of times. “I'm with you,” he replied. “I understand that. But to win, we have to draw down. We have to bring our force levels down to ones that are sustainable both for them and for us.”

Casey felt that the Iraqis, a proud people and resistant to the Western occupation, needed to take over. The large, visible US force was ultimately a sign of disrespect. Worse, the prolonged occupation was making the Iraqis dependent. Each time additional US troops arrived, they soon seemed indispensable. The Iraqis needed to take back their country and their self-respect, so central to Arab culture. They needed to fight their own war and run their own government; they were doing neither.

Casey studied Bush's face, now wrinkled and showing its 59 years, the right eye slightly more closed than the left under graying, full eyebrows.

The general had pushed for a drawdown for two years. And while the President had always approved the strategy, he no longer seemed to buy Casey's argument. “I know I've got work to do to convince you of that,” the general said, “but I firmly believe that.”

Bush looked sceptical. “I need to do a better job explaining to you” why winning means getting out, Casey said. “You do,” Bush replied.

Casey had long concluded that one big problem with the war was the President himself. He later told a colleague in private that he had the impression that Bush reflected the “radical wing of the Republican Party that kept saying, ‘Kill the bastards! Kill the bastards! And you'll succeed.’” Since the beginning, the President had viewed the war in conventional terms, repeatedly asking how many of the various enemies had been captured or killed.

The real battle, Casey believed, was to prepare the Iraqis to protect and govern themselves.

This is an edited extract from The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008, by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster,price to come. Read the full extract in The Weekend Australian tomorrow. (Petraeus, officially commanding general, Multi-National Force - Iraq, later this month assumes a promotion as commander of the US Central Command, which includes the Middle East and Central Asia.)

Bush considering 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq

The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.

President Bush is considering Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation, which the official said is for a reduction of "well over 7,500 personnel," with the number including combat and support troops.

Some units would leave Iraq over the next five months as they complete their missions. But the first possible significant reduction -- an army brigade combat team -- would leave without replacement early next year, said the official, and that would free a brigade to be rotated to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

Petraeus gave his recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who have passed it and other recommendations along to the president.

A reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq would free up personnel for deployment to Afghanistan, a move urged by many commanders. The Taliban has stepped up its fight in that country, posing a challenge for the 33,000 U.S. troops deployed there.

The White House will not comment on the details of the Iraq recommendations. Spokeswoman Dana Perino said only that Bush "has received the assessment and recommendation from the Pentagon and he is considering his options."

The president is expected to make an announcement on troop levels next week, the same time Gates and Mullen are to testify before the House Armed Services Committee about Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Iraq and the United States are working to seal a security agreement that would set down a framework to withdraw troops.

In deciding on troop cuts, officials must weigh the need for sufficient U.S. military presence to help Iraq build its army and the significant sentiment there for U.S. and coalition troops to withdraw swiftly.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been looking at a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011, and a deadline of June 30, 2009, to end the presence of U.S. troops in cities and towns.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed that Gates and Mullen made their recommendations to Bush on Wednesday, but gave no details.

"I can tell you that all these leaders are fundamentally in agreement on how we should proceed in Iraq," he said of Gates, Mullen, Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting Central Command chief Gen. Martin Dempsey.

"Of course, now it is up to the commander-in-chief to decide the way ahead," Morrell said.

Officials said senior military leaders agree that the soonest troop levels could be significantly reduced would be early in 2009, when a 3,500-strong brigade from the 10th Mountain Division is scheduled to deploy to Iraq to replace a brigade leaving in mid-January.

Pentagon officials say that would free another brigade combat team to arrive in Afghanistan in mid-February.

The Army has identified units that could be available for Afghanistan, but it would take two to three months from the time the decision is made to assemble all the weaponry and equipment they need and ship them and the troops to Afghanistan, two Army officials told CNN.

The officials said the troops would not need extensive additional training to switch from Iraq to Afghanistan, especially those earmarked to train Afghan forces.

The increase in fighting in Afghanistan contrasts with the dramatic drop in violence across Iraq, where U.S. military is confident that it will continue to make strides.

The military transferred security control to Iraqis this week in the country's Anbar province, a Sunni Arab region once dominated by insurgents and now a bastion of the Awakening Councils, or Sons of Iraq, U.S.-backed groups that help with some security duties.

The military said it plans to transfer management of the Awakening Councils to the Iraqi government next month.

"The government of Iraq and coalition forces have agreed in principle to transfer all 100,000 Sons of Iraq," Maj. John Hall told CNN. "The transfer will start with the Baghdad province, with the other provinces following at a later date."

Under the security agreement still being negotiated, the Iraqi government could ask Americans to extend the tentative deadlines if it sees the necessity of doing so. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would then help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground.

Fury in Iraq as Bob Woodward claims US spied on Nouri al-Maliki

Iraq is demanding an explanation from the United States after allegations that US intelligence agencies have been spying on Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister and other government officials.

If the claims, made in a new book by veteran investigative reporter Bob Woodward, prove to be true they will “cast a shadow” over relations between Baghdad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US intelligence services, an Iraqi government spokesman said yesterday.

“If it is true, if it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way,” Dr Ali al-Dabbagh told The Times.

“If it is true it casts a shadow on the future relations with such institutions,” he said. “We will raise this with the American side and we will ask for an explanation.”

The comments came in response to excerpts from Mr Woodward's latest book, which claimed that US intelligence agencies “know everything” Mr al-Maliki says.

It also alleges that they have been spying on his staff and others within the Iraqi Government at a time when both sides were working together to defeat the bloody insurgency that consumed Iraq in 2006 and early 2007.

A US embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad declined to comment on the revelations in The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008.

The book, due to be published on Monday, also claims that a “surge” last year of almost 30,000 additional US troops into Baghdad and the surrounding area was not the primary reason behind a drop in the violence in recent months.

Instead, it alludes to “groundbreaking” new covert techniques that enabled US military and intelligence officials to pinpoint and kill key insurgent leaders, including senior members of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It declines to give more details, however, to avoid revealing state secrets.

Mr Woodward's book, his fourth on President Bush's handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, portrays the rifts that plagued the Bush Administration as the troop surge policy was devised against a backdrop of escalating bloodshed.

He writes that top generals staged a “near revolt” in late 2006, fearing that their advice was not reaching the President.

General David Petraeus, the current top military commander in Iraq, is portrayed in a positive light. However, as the man who implemented Mr Bush's new policy on the ground, his predecessor, General George Casey, is seen as falling out of favour with the President.

Away from the political and military wranglings in Washington, the book describes the development of a close working relationship between Mr Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister, with the American President encouraging Mr al-Maliki to take decisive action against sectarianism.

Mr Woodward, an associate editor at The Washington Post, wrote that one official with knowledge of the surveillance activities recognised the sensitivity of the issue and then asked, “Would it be better if we didn't?”.

A senior aide to Mr al-Maliki expressed regret at the spying allegations if they were valid.

“If it's correct I feel sorry because the relation between Iraq and the United States should be on a level of trust and of co-operation rather than of spying and a lack of trust,” Sadiq alRikabi told The Times.

The aide said that he would not be able to tell if his whole office was full of bugging devices, adding: “I am not a professional in that field.”

It is unclear what damage the spying allegations will do to relations between Iraq and the United States if proved to be true.

At present, Mr al-Maliki's offices as well as other key government buildings are just down the road from the US Embassy inside the fortified green zone in Baghdad.

US advisers work side by side with their Iraqi counterparts at various Iraqi ministries, while US, British and other coalition officials attend weekly top-level security meetings with the Iraqi leader and other senior government officials.

Mr al-Maliki, who was sworn in as Prime Minister in May 2006, has led Iraq through some of its most turbulent postwar months and, more recently, a dramatic drop in the violence.

He was seen initially by the Bush Administration as weak and ineffective as daily bombings and sectarian killings raged across the country at the hands of Sunni Islamist al-Qaeda and the Shia al-Mahdi Army. But that image changed thanks in part to the surge.

Boosting his secular credentials, the Shia Prime Minister, 58, has also headed crackdowns on Shia militants in the southern city of Basra as well as the Baghdad slum of Sadr City, while attacking al-Qaeda strongholds in the north.

The words of Woodward

— Bob Woodward's career as a journalist began badly. In a trial fortnight at The Washington Post in 1970 he wrote 17 stories and had none published

— He unearthed the Watergate scandal after only nine months at The Washington Post, while working night shifts. He was assigned to cover the story along with a younger but more experienced reporter, Carl Bernstein.

— Much of their information came from one of Woodward's contacts, named Deep Throat.

— He was later revealed, although not by Woodward, to be W. Mark Felt Sr, an FBI agent

— Through the years he has accumulated some critics: one dubbed him a “mindless Sir Edmund Hillary: he climbs for the detail because it is there, gettable by him, even if it tells us nothing”.

— In the late 1980s his reputation suffered a blow with claims that he had faked or exaggerated a deathbed interview with William Casey, a former Director of the CIA

—More recently he has built a formidable reputation on the strength and depth of his contacts. High ranking officials in the White House and the security services talk to him in depth on and off the record. He has written 15 books

Iraq politician Ahmad Chalabi survives assassination attempt

A suicide bomber tried to assassinate politician Ahmad Chalabi on Friday night, killing six of his guards when he rammed his car into the Shiite Muslim politician's speeding convoy, Chalabi's spokesman said.

Chalabi, who has survived at least three previous attempts on his life, was returning to his home in the west Baghdad district of Mansour when the bomber in a sport utility vehicle struck, spokesman Iyad Kadhim Sabti said. At least 17 people were wounded, including nine of Chalabi's guards, police said. Chalabi was unharmed.

It was not clear who was behind the attack, Sabti added. The blast, not far from the politician's compound, was heard across the capital.

Chalabi, a former exile who returned to Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, travels around Baghdad regularly in heavily protected convoys. Until last month, he headed a committee on public services for the capital, and had served during parts of 2005 and 2006 as deputy prime minister and acting oil minister.

A longtime darling of Washington neoconservatives in and out of the Bush administration, Chalabi provided much of the faulty intelligence on the late dictator Saddam Hussein's weapons program that President Bush used to justify the invasion. His relationship with the White House faltered after U.S. forces failed to find any evidence that Hussein had an active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program and the information Chalabi supplied was discredited.

Chalabi ran for election on his own slate in Iraq's last national balloting but failed to win a seat in parliament. He has managed to remain a player in Iraq's political arena because of his chairmanship of the country's de-Baathification commission, which purged members of Hussein's regime from state jobs, and his ability to juggle disparate alliances. Chalabi has forged relationships with anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's populist movement, as well as some members of the largely Sunni Arab, U.S.-funded Sons of Iraq paramilitary program.

Despite a drop in violence in the last year, assassination attempts targeting civil servants and prominent individuals continue to occur routinely in Baghdad. Earlier Friday, gunmen with silencers killed a civilian advisor to the Defense Ministry, Abdul Amir Hassan Abbas, as he drove through east Baghdad, police said.

Also Friday, the government said it would question U.S. officials about allegations, in a new book by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, that America has been spying on Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

"If it is true, if it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way," government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement.

He warned that the news could imperil future relations with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. "We will raise this with the American side and we will ask for an explanation," he said.

The allegations were first reported by the Washington Post on Friday in an article about Woodward's book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008."

Allegations of spying by U.S. rattle Iraq

The Iraqi government reacted sharply Friday to published allegations that the U.S. spied on Iraq's prime minister, warning that future ties with the United States could be in jeopardy if the report were true.

The allegations appear in a new book, The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008, by journalist Bob Woodward, who writes that the United States spied extensively on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his staff and other government officials.

The report emerged as the two governments are in delicate negotiations over the future of American troops in Iraq. Those talks have already extended past their July 31 deadline and have drawn sharp criticism from Iraqis who want an end to the U.S. presence.

Critics may well use the allegation to step up pressure on the government not to sign a deal or hold out for the most favorable terms.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Baghdad will raise the allegations with the U.S. and ask for an explanation.

But if true, he warned, it shows a lack of trust.

"It reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way," al-Dabbagh said in a statement.

"If it is true, it casts a shadow on the future relations with such institutions," al-Dabbagh added, referring to the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

In Washington, the White House declined to directly comment on the allegations.

Instead, spokeswoman Dana Perino said official channels of communication between the two governments happen daily.

"We have a good idea of what Prime Minister Maliki is thinking because he tells us, very frankly and very candidly, as often as we can," Perino said.

Despite the Iraqi government's sharp public criticism, a top aide to al-Maliki was more measured in his response.

"If this is true, then we feel sorry about that. We look upon the Americans as our partners. There's nothing of real value that would require the Americans to spy on us. On top of that, we have nothing to hide from the Americans to make them have to spy on us," the aide told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Other Iraqi officials expressed dismay about spying allegations.

"If it is true, it is very dangerous and we will condemn it because how can a friend spy on you? This is unacceptable for us," said Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Kurdish lawmaker.

Ex-Saddam general shot dead in Baghdad

A former Iraqi general under Saddam Hussein turned defence ministry advisor was shot dead in broad daylight in central Baghdad on Friday security sources said.

Gunmen assaulted Abdelamir Hassan Abbas as he was driving his car in the neighbourhood of Zayona, pumping bullets into him with a silenced firearm, the security official with the interior ministry said.

"They killed him immediately," he added. The incident was confirmed by Iraqi military sources. Abbas, a Shiite brigadier general in executed dictator Saddam Hussein's army, went to work as a civilian consultant for Iraq's defence ministry several months ago.

Excuse us for eavesdropping, Prime Minister Maliki

Sometimes, Baghdad's Green Zone, the walled-off axis of American and Iraqi power, is akin to a spy novel. Concertina wire, endless soot-stained gray concrete walls, the speeding convoys of armored vehicles give the enclave a conspiratorial atmosphere. According to legend, key words like Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army in a phone conversation ensure that your call will be monitored by some intelligence agency somewhere. On one occasion, a western official cautioned that a U.S. advisor to an Iraqi minister wasn’t advising his client, but spying on him.

The latest episode in Baghdad’s annals of cloak-and-dagger escapades came Friday with a Washington Post report that the U.S. government had been spying on Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. The information comes from a new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008," by famed journalist and Washington insider Bob Woodward. “We know everything he [Maliki] says,” one source bragged to Woodward, according to the Post.

The allegations were mentioned in January 2007 by Newsweek magazine. Then the magazine quoted unnamed White House officials as saying that Maliki’s conversations had been monitored because the United States wanted to make sure the prime minister was not saying one thing to them and another thing in private.

The magazine reported that the spying had reassured U.S. officials about Maliki.

However, the Iraqi government found nothing comforting in Woodward’s latest opus. "If it is true, if it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way," said Ali Dabbagh, the Iraqi government’s spokesman, in an e-mailed statement.

He warned that the news could imperil future relations with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. “We will raise this with the American side and we will ask for an explanation," he said.

Others took a more blasé approach, as if they expected the Americans would be listening in on Iraqi officials. Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, a senior Shiite politician, thought it might “make things turbid” between the two countries. Other than that, he said, “It’s not a surprise.”

US soldier dies in Baghdad

The US military has confirmed the death of one American combat soldier of injuries sustained in a non-combat related incident in Baghdad.

The US military central command in Iraq said the soldier died on Friday but failed to offer any further details.

According to an AFP count, his death brings to 4,155 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

Gen. Petraeus recommends delay in Iraq troop cuts

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has recommended that President Bush postpone sharp troop cuts in Iraq until next year, delaying a large-scale shift of combat forces to Afghanistan and reflecting concerns that widespread violence could return to Iraq.

Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then, a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February, a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public.

The move would represent a compromise between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comprising the uniformed heads of the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. The Joint Chiefs had hoped for a sharper cut -- of up to 10,000 troops -- by the end of the year. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, had pushed to keep 140,000 troops, or 15 combat brigades and support personnel, until next June.

"It is a compromise solution," said a military official, describing internal discussions on condition of anonymity. "It is about balancing risks and requirements."

Any further changes would be decided by the next administration, military officials said.

The recommendation contrasts with Petraeus' statements before Congress in May, when he predicted an autumn troop reduction, even if a small one. The warning against deep cutbacks also comes amid a sharp debate in the presidential campaign, in which Republican John McCain has praised Bush's troop strategy and Democrat Barack Obama has said he would withdraw troops to send more forces to Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials emphasized that the recommendations have not been accepted by President Bush. But over the last 18 months, Bush has deferred to Petraeus, who has accepted the compromise. The White House said Bush is considering the advice.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to discuss the specifics of the recommendation but said it bridged divisions among military leaders.

"I can tell you that all these leaders are fundamentally in agreement on how we should proceed in Iraq," Morrell said in a statement. "They came to agreement after serious and lengthy discussions about the dramatic security gains in Iraq, the threats that still exist there and the uncertainties that remain."

In recent months, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stressed the importance of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan to counter a growing threat by extremists.

But because of the strains of combat on the armed forces, plans to boost the number of troops in Afghanistan have depended on reducing the size of the force in Iraq.

One source of the strain, the 2007 troop buildup ordered by Bush, came to an end in July, when the last of 21,500 additional combat troops left. Throughout the year, as the troop buildup was ending, the number of forces in Iraq gradually declined.

But Petraeus requested a halt in the troop cuts over the summer while officials assessed conditions.

Among other troop recommendations, the Pentagon has asked Bush to send a Marine battalion -- about 1,000 troops -- to Afghanistan in November. They would replace 3,200 Marines who were sent to Iraq earlier this year and are due to leave.

The troop changes would mean that before next spring, when fighting is expected to intensify, an additional brigade along with the Marine battalion would bolster the U.S. force in Afghanistan by about 1,300 troops. Including the current Marine units, there now are about 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Petraeus' insistence on keeping a larger troop presence in Iraq would prevent a larger shift sought by the Joint Chiefs. Commanders in Afghanistan have requested three additional brigades. And members of the Joint Chiefs had hoped to be able to send at least one brigade by the end of the year.

However, Petraeus has worried over the departure of other nations from the U.S.-led Iraq coalition, including the reduction in forces by Britain and the abrupt recall last month of 2,000 Georgian troops.

White House officials declined to comment on the Petraeus recommendation. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are expected to testify before Congress about the recommendation next Wednesday. An announcement by Bush is expected shortly afterward.

White House spied on Iraq's leader, Bob Woodward says in book

The Bush administration has conducted an extensive spying operation on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, his staff and others in his government, according to a new book by Washington Post editor and author Bob Woodward.

"We know everything he says," according to one of multiple sources Woodward cites about the practice in "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," scheduled for publication by Simon & Schuster on Monday.

The book also says the U.S. troop "surge" of 2007, in which President Bush sent nearly 30,000 additional U.S. forces to Iraq, was not the primary factor behind the steep drop in violence there during the last 16 months.

Rather, Woodward reports, "groundbreaking" covert techniques, beginning in 2007, enabled U.S. military and intelligence officials to locate and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups.

Woodward does not disclose the code names of the covert programs or provide much detail about them, saying in the book that White House and other officials cited national security concerns in asking him to withhold specifics.

Overall, Woodward writes, four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the agreement by militant cleric Muqtada Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army militia; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq and allied with U.S. forces.

The 487-page book is Woodward's fourth to examine the inner debates of the Bush administration and its handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The book is based on more than 150 interviews with the president's national security team, senior deputies and other key players in the intelligence, diplomatic and military communities. Woodward conducted two on-the-record interviews with Bush in May.

It portrays an administration split by dissent as the situation in Iraq deteriorated during the summer and early fall of 2006. Publicly, Bush said U.S. forces were "winning"; privately, he came to believe that the military's long-term strategy of training Iraqi security forces and handing over responsibility to the new Iraqi government was failing.

In October 2006, the book says, Bush asked Stephen Hadley, his national security advisor, to lead a closely guarded review of the Iraq war. That first assessment did not include anyone from the military, however, and proceeded secretly because of White House fears that news coverage of a review might damage Republican chances in the midterm congressional elections.

According to Woodward, the president maintained an odd detachment from the reviews of war policy during this period, turning much of the process over to Hadley. "Let's cut to the chase," Bush told Woodward. "Hadley drove a lot of this."

Responding to a question about how the White House settled on a troop surge of five brigades after the military leadership in Washington had reluctantly said it could provide two, Bush said: "OK, I don't know this. I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."

The book presents an evolving picture of the president's decision making. On the one hand, it portrays Bush as detached, tentative and slow to react to the escalating violence in Iraq; on the other, after he decided that a surge was required, he is shown acting with focus and determination to move ahead with his plan in the face of strong resistance from his top military advisors.

No time to ignore Iraq

In a land that seems increasingly far away, 140,000 U.S. troops still labor – fortunately with less risk to life and limb than during some previous time periods. And, with a tentative agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi prime minister to have most troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, perhaps we’re even within sight of a close to this particularly misbegotten chapter in American history.

And yet. As with all things Iraqi so far anyway, powder kegs remain. The much vaunted Sunni Awakening seems to be somewhat less than pleasing to the ruling Shiites, who apparently now want some of the Sunni leaders arrested and tried for their previous ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Provincial elections – scheduled for December, last I saw a report on them – may prove problematic or may get postponed again. Who runs Kirkuk is not resolved. Whether Muqtada al-Sadr chooses to fight or stick to politics is another great unknown. Meanwhile, lots of Iraqis remain refugees.

I would hope that whoever becomes president in January will be able to approach Iraq with a lot of flexibility. I am not enamored of Barack Obama’s call for a specific timetable (although he has plenty of asterisks attached to it), nor do I think much of John McCain’s almost sole emphasis on “victory.” I would mostly like to see an Iraq that is stable and secure for all of its people; that may mean we have to keep a sort of peace-keeping force there for a long time – perhaps even longer than the majority Shiites want. We may also have to acknowledge that most of the time, Iraq is going to be very friendly with Iran. How a president walks this tightrope, I don’t know, except that a huge emphasis on diplomacy would seem to be in order.

Meanwhile, Gen. Petraeus calls the current relative calm tenuous: “It’s not durable yet. It’s not self-sustaining,” he told the New York Times.

I personally can live with an extended, and extensive, troop presence in Iraq as long as it means Iraq is getting safer day by day for its citizens (and our soldiers). I don’t want our troops used to baby-sit a civil war, though, or worse, be on one side or the other of sectarian bloodbaths. Yet there is some room for hope, which certainly didn’t exist two years ago, that we may finally be on something close to the right course. It sort of reaffirms the saying that we as a country usually end up doing the right thing -- after we’ve tried everything else.

Former Iraq minister sentenced to death

A former Iraqi cabinet minister has been sentenced to death for ordering the murder of a Sunni politician's two sons.

Assad Kamal al-Hashemi, also a Sunni, resigned as culture minister and went into hiding last year when he was first charged in the February 2005 attack on parliamentary candidate Mithal al-Alusi. Al-Alusi's two sons were killed in the attack.

The Central Criminal Court of Iraq handed down a guilty verdict and death sentence in absentia for al-Hashemi on Wednesday, according to a court official.

Sunni members of the cabinet suspended their participation in Iraq's government last summer after al-Hashemi was accused in the plot. They cited the prosecution of al-Hashemi as one reason, calling it an attempt by the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to marginalize the Sunni bloc.

Al-Hashemi was part of the General Conference of the Iraqi People, which is part of the Iraqi Accord Front, the country's largest Sunni bloc. It rejoined the cabinet last month. He was an imam at a Baghdad mosque at the time of the killings.

Two people who planned and carried out the attack confessed that they took orders from al-Hashemi, an Iraqi government official has said. The arrest warrant naming al-Hashemi was issued specifically for the killings of al-Alusi's sons, not the failed attempt against al-Alusi.

Al-Alusi was a leading figure in the secular Iraqi National Congress Party but was expelled after visiting Israel. He was elected to Parliament as the head of his own group, the Iraqi Democratic National Party, which holds one seat.

On Saturday, an assistant to the minister of culture was killed. The assistant, Kamel Shiyah, died when militants opened fire on his vehicle, according to an Interior Ministry official. Shiyah's guard was injured in the shooting and taken to a hospital.

Gunmen Kill a Top Official in Baghdad

Kamal Shyaa Abdullah was warned to drive in a guarded convoy when he traveled through the streets of Baghdad — he was a high-ranking official in the Ministry of Culture and was soon to become a deputy minister. But he disliked all the fuss of bodyguards and extra cars, and he refused protection.

On Saturday, Mr. Abdullah, 54, was killed by gunmen as he and his driver headed down the highway toward a public garden where they had planned to relax in the hottest hours of the afternoon.

Akil al-Mendlawi, a spokesman for the Ministry of Culture, said that Mr. Abdullah, a well-known scholar and a member of the Communist Party, had become friends with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki when both men were in exile in Syria.

Mr. Abdullah’s promotion to deputy minister had been approved, and Mr. Maliki was expected to sign papers confirming his appointment within days.

Violence also erupted on Saturday in the city of Kirkuk, where a suicide bombing killed at least five people and wounded at least seven, including Abdul Kareem Ahmed al-Obaydi, a prominent member of the American-backed Sunni forces known as Awakening Councils.

The bomber detonated an explosives-filled vest inside an automobile dealership in a southern area of the city, according to Maj. Salih al-Lihabi of the Kirkuk police.

Mr. Obaydi, the leader of the Awakening movement in Diyala Province, his son and two bodyguards were killed when the bomb exploded, a few minutes after 7 p.m.

The suicide bombing is the second in Kirkuk since last weekend.

In Baghdad, American military officials released Ahmed Nouri Raziak, 38, an Iraqi photographer working for The Associated Press who had been held in jail for almost three months.

Maj. John C. Hall, an American military spokesman, said that Mr. Raziak had been believed to be a security risk, but was released when “after review, he was determined not to pose a risk.”

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of The A.P., said in a statement that the news agency “will be seeking more specific information about why he was picked up and held and about his experience during his incarceration.”

Also in Baghdad on Saturday, officials at the Justice Ministry said that a court had issued a death sentence for Asad al-Hashimi, a former culture minister who was convicted for the 2005 murders of two sons of a well-known politician.

Mr. Hashimi, a member of one of the parties in Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, has been a fugitive since last year.

Polygamist braves war zone for wives

Having two wives at the same time makes life complicated, as many a polygamist can attest. But having two wives in a war zone can be particularly problematic, as Walid Karim has found out to his peril.

Islamic and Iraqi law permit a man to marry up to four times, but the husband is supposed to do so only on condition that he treat his spouses equally. It's an injunction most men are obliged to observe, if not by law then because their dueling wives insist.

In common with others in his situation, Karim, 37, alternates the nights he spends with his wives — one night with his first one and their three children in the house he provides for her in Sadr City, the next with the second one and their one child across the city in the neighborhood of Bayaa, and so on.

Fierce fighting
When he awoke one morning earlier this year with his second wife to find out that fierce fighting had broken out around the home of his first wife, he called to say he wouldn't be able to make it that night. But she begged him, insisting it was her turn.

"I had to go because she was afraid, and the children needed me," Karim said.

The next morning he awoke with his first wife to find that the violence had worsened and a curfew had been imposed on the entire city. But the tears of his second wife left him with no choice but to venture out, on foot because vehicles were banned.

For the next three weeks, as mortar shells rained down on Baghdad and fighting raged in Sadr City, he shuttled in and out of the war zone between his families, dodging bullets and militia fighters in fulfillment of his responsibilities.

"It was so difficult," he recalled at the CD shop he runs in central Baghdad. "It would be the end of the world with my first wife if I didn't make it to see her, and it's the same with the second one.

"There weren't any taxis so I had to walk, and because there was fighting on the main streets of Sadr City, I had to use the back alleys. It would take me half an hour (to leave Sadr City) and sometimes this half-hour felt like a whole year."

Marital peace
Baghdad is now calmer, and Karim's marital problems have eased, too. His wives have stopped calling each other to hurl insults.

He said he married his first wife in 1996 in a match arranged by a close friend, but after a few years he found that although he liked her, he did not love her. So in 2002 he married again, to the fury of his first wife. "She got used to it," he said.

Though having them live on different sides of the city can be inconvenient, the two wives have never met and Karim hopes to keep it that way.

"We have a saying that if your two wives quarrel with each other, it's better for the husband," he said. "If two women agree with each other about a man, it's his end."

US Marines refuse to testify in Iraq prisoner death trial

Two US Marines facing murder charges in connection with the deaths of Iraqi prisoners in Fallujah in 2004 were declared in contempt of court Friday after refusing to testify against a former comrade on trial.

Lawyers for Jermaine Nelson and Ryan Weemer said the Marines would not give crucial evidence for the prosecution against Jose Nazario, despite assurances their testimony would not be used against them in their military trials.

Nelson and Weemer are both charged with unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty for their roles in the killing of four unarmed Iraqis taken prisoner during fierce fighting in Fallujah four years ago.

Nazario, 28, is being prosecuted in a US Federal Court on charges of voluntary manslaughter, assault with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm. It is the first time a military veteran has been tried by a civilian jury for actions that occurred during combat.

Nelson's lawyer Joseph Low and Weemer's counsel Christopher Johnson told Judge Stephen Larson that neither soldier would give evidence against Nazario.

The refusal to testify came despite Larson informing lawyers that the military prosecutor overseeing their courts martial at Camp Pendleton had said in a letter that Nelson and Weemer's testimony would not be used against them.

"There is no doubt in my mind as a matter of law, nothing that is said in this courtroom could be used in Camp Pendleton. Period," Larson said.

However Low said lawyers were skeptical that the letter would carry enough protection, noting that it had not been signed by the Marines' top commander.

"Why is it the one person who could sign it won't do it?" Low asked the judge. "It's suspicious, sir."

Both Weemer and Nelson were jailed earlier this year for contempt after refusing to testify against Nazario during a grand jury hearing.

However Larson declined to jail the two men on Friday, instead ordering them to return to court on September 29 to begin contempt proceedings.

On Thursday, prosecutors told the jury that Nazario had ignored clear rules about how to treat prisoners and ordered the execution-style killing of four "unarmed, submissive, docile" detainees during a house search.

Nazario is alleged to have shot dead two of the captives himself before ordering subordinates Weemer and Nelson to kill the others.

The case came to light after Weemer, 25, underwent a background screening for a job in the US Secret Service in 2006, and gave details of the incident after being asked if had ever taken part in an unjustified killing.

The revelation triggered an investigation by the US Naval Criminal Intelligence Service which saw Nazario's squad mates questioned.

However without Weemer's testimony to the events in Fallujah, the prosecution's case appears to have been weakened.

"This is the 'no' case -- no bodies, no evidence, no identification of alleged victims, no witnesses," defense lawyer Joe Preis told AFP on Friday.

Asked what effect Nelson and Weemer's refusal to testify would have on the trial, Preis replied: "It's our position that it has no impact on this no case. (But) It doesn't hurt us for sure."

Iraq seeks breakup of U.S.-funded Sunni fighters

An emboldened Iraqi government has launched an aggressive campaign to disband a U.S.-funded force of Sunni Arab fighters that has been key to Iraq's fragile peace, arresting prominent members and sending others into hiding or exile as their former patrons in the American military reluctantly stand by.

The Shiite Muslim-led government has long distrusted the fighters, many of whom are former insurgents. Senior Shiite politicians label some of the members murderers, and warn that there is no long-term obligation to employ them after their units are disbanded.

"The ones in Baghdad and Diyala province just changed their T-shirts. There are large numbers who were really Al Qaeda. We have to really look hard for those elements without blood on their hands," said Haidar Abadi, a lawmaker from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party.

Amid fears that the Sunnis' treatment could rekindle Iraq's insurgency, the Americans are caught between their wish to support the fighters and their stronger ties to Maliki's government, which has challenged the Sunni paramilitaries in recent months as it grows increasingly confident about its fledgling army.

"We want to have our cake and eat it too, support Maliki and the Sons of Iraq. . . . Maliki wants to make that as hard for us as possible. He wants us to choose him," said Stephen Biddle, a Council on Foreign Relations defense expert who has served as an advisor on strategy to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq. "What it looks like we are getting is a Maliki government that won't behave itself and wants to crush the Sons of Iraq."

The chief U.S. military spokesman here denied Maliki was targeting the Sons of Iraq, or that the Americans were tilting toward the government at the expense of the Sunni fighters.

"Just last week, the prime minister gave his personal commitment to the program," Brig. Gen. David Perkins said. "They are well aware of the sacrifices the Sons of Iraq have made, that they were a critical element in bringing the security situation under control and that it is in their strategic advantage to assimilate them peacefully and orderly into Iraqi society."

Maliki has grown powerful after successful military operations in spring against Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's militia in southern Iraq and Baghdad. His transformation has provided the Americans a partner they can work with as they look for a way to hand over the reins in Iraq, the long-term U.S. goal here.

A Western advisor to the Iraqi government said the U.S. military couldn't stop the Iraqi security forces now even if it wanted to -- they are larger in size and have their own chain of command.

The Iraqi government first challenged the U.S. military over the Sons of Iraq program in the spring -- basically freezing the activities of the Iraqi reconciliation committee charged with integrating the 99,000 fighters into the security forces and civilian jobs, according to a Shiite advisor to the government.

In July, Maliki informed the Americans that he wanted the entire program handed over to him as soon as possible, said Mohammed Salman, the head of the committee. In response, the U.S. military has drafted plans to dissolve the group by next summer, integrating 20% of its members into the police and finding the rest such jobs as mechanics, electricians and carpenters. The Americans want to slash the Sons of Iraq to 60,000 by the end of the year.

"Our goal is that by June 2009, the Sons of Iraq are out of business," said Lt. Col. Jeffrey Kulmayer, who is charged with the Sunni paramilitary file.

Just over 9,000 of the Sunni fighters have been hired into the security forces so far. And the government has warned that any program to provide the majority of the fighters job training once their paramilitary units are disbanded will be temporary.

"We have the same problems around the country. We can't just create a program to pay some people and not others," said Abadi, the lawmaker.

Such comments raise concerns in U.S. military circles that the men will be pushed back to joining dwindling militant groups such as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

"If the government of Iraq doesn't decide to employ all of them, you have jobless rates that skyrocket," said a U.S. intelligence analyst who, like some others who spoke for this report, did so on condition of anonymity. "I don't know what will happen."

Many of the fighters are now on the run. The Iraqi military has mostly dismantled the group in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, once a hub for militant attacks, and it has arrested Sunni fighters in Baqubah, 35 miles northeast of the capital. Influential Sunni paramilitary leaders, from the Baghdad and Baqubah areas, have gone into hiding or are in exile.

In the past, U.S. commanders had deflected arrest warrants for key fighters, but there has been an apparent shift. "We don't have a 'get out of jail free' card for the Sons of Iraq. There is law and order in this country, and we respect the Iraqi government," Kulmayer said.

The men feel increasingly vulnerable -- they have been attacked by Al Qaeda and Shiite militias and subjected to Iraqi army raids. Since January, 462 of them have been killed in attacks by militants. If disbanded, their leaders warn, the men could revolt, but the Sons of Iraq are holding out hope that local elections, still without a date, will improve their lot.

"In the event that the U.S. military and government don't live up to their promises, it could turn back to a violent form of resistance," said a leader, Abu Abed, from the north Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiya. "Every action breeds a reaction."

In Abu Ghraib, there are no Sons of Iraq on the street in the Nasr Salam district, only Iraqi army checkpoints. Soldiers with sunglasses and Kalashnikov rifles stand by concrete barriers with graffiti identifying them as the Muthanna Brigade, a force feared by the local Sunni population. Asked about the Sons of Iraq, locals and an Iraqi army officer say the movement doesn't exist there anymore.

Until May, Abu Azzam, a former stockbroker and onetime Islamic Army insurgent leader, headed the 700-man Sons of Iraq branch in the district. He fled the area in May when the Americans informed him that the Muthanna Brigade was taking security responsibility there.

He says the brigade raided his members' houses and detained up to 10 leaders. His foot soldiers fled. Some haven't seen their families in more than a month. He is stunned about what happened. But the former insurgent has plotted his next move, establishing a political party called Dignity, which he hopes will turn the tables on his opponents in the still-to-be-scheduled elections.

"We have to get rid of the Iranian influence in Iraq and rebuild the democratic state," he said, baring his suspicions about the current government, dominated by religious parties.

Abu Azzam suspects that some of his fighters have already gone back to war, but he doesn't believe the violence will return to its previous levels. Still, the fact that his old allies are on the lam has him worried. "Anyone who feels disappointed will go back," he said. "Definitely, he will go to the resistance. He will go back to violence."

While some have fled their posts, other leaders of the Sons of Iraq are behind bars. Mullah Shihab Safi, the commander of the Sons of Iraq in Baqubah, turned himself in to the government Aug. 15. He had gone into hiding when the Iraqi army launched an offensive in Baqubah in late July and sent soldiers to arrest not only Al Qaeda members but also Sons of Iraq leaders.

The Iraqi army shut down most of the group's checkpoints there, raided its members' homes and closed all but one of its offices. Then, last week, Maliki announced that gunmen could apply for amnesty. Safi decided to take the government up on its offer. He showed up at the local government's headquarters, accompanied by a tribal sheik to vouch for him, and submitted his application. At least 13 Sunni fighters remain in jail, Safi said.

The Sunni commander has accepted the situation -- if only because his options are limited. "We feel this is a political game to embarrass and expel us," he said. "We are just dealing with the matter because we have no choice."

He hints that some could restart the fight against the Americans and the Iraqi government if things continue to deteriorate. Like most, he has his eyes on elections as a way for his group to gain power -- yet even that target seems elusive after parliament failed to pass an election law this summer.

"We don't know what our stance will be if other things happen from the security forces, the Iraqi government or the Americans," Safi said. He recognizes that things have changed with his U.S. allies. "The Americans have made their compromises. They want the Iraqi central government authority to prevail, so they can withdraw to their bases."

Withdrawing from Iraq

Quietly and hesitatingly, the U.S. and Iraqi governments have reached a tentative agreement to send U.S. combat troops home by the end of 2011. The lack of fanfare is in part because of the gantlet of Iraqi politicians the deal must pass through before becoming official -- three different Iraqi leadership groups and the parliament will all get a chance at changing the details. The Bush administration has also downplayed the significance of the deal, saying it would merely set "aspirational goals" for troop withdrawals, not deadlines.

Nevertheless, even a tentative agreement is a welcome development because it brings the two countries that much closer to ending more than five years of U.S. occupation. The draft calls for U.S. troops to depart from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and the rest of the country 2 1/2 years later, with a relatively small contingent remaining to advise and train Iraqi security forces. The withdrawal dates would be subject to change if conditions took a turn for the worse, although that decision would reportedly be left to the Iraqi government, not the next American president.

As we've learned from the ebb and flow of the war in Afghanistan, our entanglement in Iraq may not end when the last combat troops leave. The Iraqi government still hasn't achieved the political reconciliation that's critical to long-term stability, with impasses remaining over provincial elections, reforming the constitution and dividing the nation’s oil revenue. But there's also the prospect that ending the occupation will improve chances for peace by giving insurgents one less recruiting tool and rallying point. In addition, as we've seen in the last year, Iraqi forces are increasingly able to defeat militants without U.S. troops in the lead. The Iraqi military isn't uniformly competent, but its skill is improving as its peacekeeping responsibilities increase.

By insisting that the deal wouldn't impose a timetable for withdrawal, the Bush administration may be playing semantic games to reduce the impact on the contest between Republican presidential candidate John McCain (a vocal opponent of timetables) and Democratic contender Barack Obama (a longtime proponent). Each is already claiming credit for the deal: McCain contends that the troop surge he championed made the tentative pact possible, while Obama argues that the Iraqis and the Bush administration were following his lead in setting a withdrawal date. Either way, as long as the deal holds, the Iraq war will drift further into the background of a campaign that had already moved on to other issues, including the slumping economy and stubbornly high gas prices. Voters would be wrong to assume that America's job in Iraq is done, but an agreement even on "aspirational goals" will help speed the work.

U.S. and Iraq close to a troop withdrawal deal

American and Iraqi officials are close to a draft agreement to see U.S. forces conditionally withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011, though both sides warned Thursday that political hurdles to a final settlement remain.

The current version of the deal would set a conditional time frame for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities by next June and for combat troops to leave the country two years later.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in Baghdad's fortress-like Green Zone, downplayed expectations that approval of an agreement was imminent.

"We'll have agreement when we have agreement," Rice told reporters, addressing speculation that a deal was near.

Rice and Maliki huddled for 2 1/2 hours, trying to iron out differences in the pact, which would govern the presence of U.S. forces here after their United Nations mandate expires in December.

Iraq's foreign minister warned that Iraqi politicians must still approve any deal, cautioning that previous drafts had been touted as complete, only for one side or the other to find fault.

"We've been through this before, but we've never been this close," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Times.

Zebari said the draft would be reviewed by the prime minister and other top government leaders tonight or during the weekend.

If senior leaders endorse the deal, it would go before the political council for national security and then to parliament for a final vote, Zebari said. In the past, items endorsed by senior leaders, including a national oil law, have never been voted on in parliament or have been delayed for months.

An aide to Maliki said that the differences with the U.S. were minor and that they hoped to close the deal before the end of the year.

"They tried to resolve some issues," the aide said. "They tried to find some compromise formula to some points. It's too early to say they reached an agreement on all issues."

A senior member of Maliki's ruling coalition, Shiite lawmaker Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, said the sides had still not agreed on all the issues.

"I believe they are struggling," he said. "It is thorny, but there is a little progress."

U.S. and Iraqi officials had aimed to reach a deal by the end of July.

Saghir said that the Americans wanted their forces to stay one year more than the Iraqis wanted. Maliki has publicly favored a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2010, a timeline for withdrawal that roughly corresponds with that proposed by Sen. Barack Obama.

The Bush administration and Sen. John McCain have voiced opposition to rigid deadlines, although the White House has acknowledged a willingness to OK a "general time horizon" for Iraqi forces to take full control of security and for U.S. troop strength to be reduced if conditions remain relatively stable.

Negotiators have also been debating whether noncombat units would stay after the withdrawal date, Saghir said. The Americans believe that Iraq will need U.S. military advisors, air support and special forces after most troops leave the country.

The two sides also are still bargaining over whether American soldiers can be tried in Iraqi courts, Saghir said.

Maliki's bottom line remains unknown. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said the danger for the prime minister is being seen by the public as endorsing an agreement that the Americans want.

"He is reluctant to pass it because he cares about his own popularity with the population. He tells his people and party that it should be one way. Maybe he tells Rice another thing," Othman said.

Populist anti-American sentiment that has influenced the negotiations was on display Thursday as radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's followers denounced Rice's visit and held demonstrations. The head of Sadr's political office, Liwa Sumaysim, warned that the movement would never accept any conditional timeline for a troop withdrawal.

In the Shiite shrine city of Najaf, several hundred demonstrators shouted, "No, no to the agreement. . . . Down with Zionism," and carried a banner that read, "We denounce the visit of mistress of evil Condoleezza Rice to Iraq."

Also Thursday, unknown gunmen in three or four GMC sport utility vehicles opened fire near central Baghdad's Bab al Sharji market, killing one civilian. A police official said they were private security contractors, but another disagreed.

Foreign security contractors' immunity from Iraqi courts has been one of the more contentious issues for the Iraqi government in negotiating a long-term agreement with the Americans.

Rice visits Baghdad to press for security deal

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed Iraqi leaders Thursday to agree quickly to a U.S.-Iraq security deal that outlines the withdrawal of American troops.

Flying into Baghdad on an unannounced trip, Rice said the two sides were nearing an agreement after months of painstaking negotiations but stressed there were still unresolved issues, including when U.S. soldiers will leave and what their operations will consist of until then.

"The negotiators have taken this very, very far," she told reporters aboard her plane. "But there is no reason to believe that there is an agreement yet."

"There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate," Rice said, adding that "the agreement rests on aspirational timelines."

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 said it was "very premature" to conclude the agreement had been finalized. The United States had hoped to seal the deal, which will replace the U.N. mandate for international forces in Iraq that expires Dec. 31, by the end of last month.

Rice declined to talk about specific gaps, but U.S. officials said more work is needed to reach agreements on a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals, immunity for U.S. troops and the handling of Iraqi prisoners.

One senior official said Rice would be pushing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hard to accept.

"Ultimately the prime minister has to make the call on moving forward," Rice said. She described her visit as "a chance for me to meet with the prime minister and see what we can do from Washington to get to closure."

One official close to al-Maliki said Wednesday that he objected to parts of the text, including the immunity provision. Another Iraqi official said al-Maliki had gone through the text personally and made notes with objections to some undisclosed points. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday that negotiators had completed a draft agreement that extends the legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond the end of this year, while calling for them to move out of Iraqi cities as soon as June 30.

A senior U.S. military official in Washington said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal approval by President Bush. It also requires approval by Iraqi leaders, and some members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions.

Also completed is a companion draft document, known as a strategic framework agreement, spelling out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, the senior military official said. The official discussed the draft accords on condition that he not be identified by name because the deals have not been publicly announced and are not final.

In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date — most likely the end of 2011 — by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while still being able to assist Iraqi forces as needed.

There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.

It was not clear Wednesday how that has been settled in the draft security accord, which the two governments are referring to as a memorandum of understanding. The draft agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, which is in recess until early next month.

Late Wednesday a second senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two sides have come up with a draft agreement that addresses the issue of the timing of future U.S. troop withdrawals, but the official would not say whether the two sides had agreed on 2011 for a final pullout. The official suggested there would be a series of timelines set, linked to conditions on the ground, and that the draft worked out by the negotiators required more talks at higher levels of the two governments.

An Iraqi official who was involved in the protracted negotiations said a compromise had been worked out on the contentious issue of whether to provide U.S. troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, but he did not give details. In Washington, the senior military official said the draft agreement reflects the U.S. position that the United States must retain exclusive legal jurisdiction over its troops in Iraq.

2011 is U.S. target date for troops' pullout from Iraq

The United States has agreed to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011 if conditions in Iraq remain relatively stable, according to Iraqi and American officials involved in negotiating a security accord.

The withdrawal timetable, which Bush administration officials called "aspirational goals" rather than fixed dates, are contained in the draft of an agreement that still must be approved by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders before it goes before Iraq's Parliament. It has the support of the Bush administration, American and Iraqi officials said.

American officials stressed repeatedly that meeting the timetables depended on the security situation in Iraq, where sectarian killings and attacks on American troops have dropped over the past year. Iraqi officials, who have pushed for an even tighter target for the U.S. to end its military operations, could also end up rejecting the draft agreement.

Even so, the accord indicates that the Bush administration is prepared to commit the U.S. to ending most combat operations in Iraq in less than a year, a much shorter time frame than seemed possible a few months ago.

Iraq's Shiite-dominated government demanded a withdrawal timetable as the price of legalizing the American military presence in the country after the expiration of the U.N. mandate Dec. 31.

In an interview by telephone in Baghdad, Mohammad Hamoud, the chief Iraqi negotiator, said that the draft contained two dates: June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of American forces from "cities and villages" and Dec. 31, 2011, for combat troops to leave the country altogether.

Mr. Hamoud said the draft specified that meeting the timetable, particularly the goal of full withdrawal by 2011, depended on the security situation. He said that at the end of 2011 the Iraqi government "will review the security situation in the country and if necessary will ask the American side for certain forces for training or supporting the Iraqi Security Forces."

The numbers of troops would be determined by a joint American and Iraqi committee to be formed at the outset of the agreement in January, he said. This panel would decide on the number and role of the remaining forces and would supervise military activity.

Another senior Iraqi Cabinet minister, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement is not final, described the 2011 target as "prospective" and said it reflected Iraqi hopes that American troops could end their presence in the country by that time. He said the ability to carry it out depended on Iraqi forces being "able to control the situation."

Even if the goal of withdrawing combat troops by 2011 is realized, the accord leaves open the possibility that American military trainers and support forces could remain in Iraq after that time. It is unclear whether the accord provides for semipermanent military bases in the country, and what role the U.S. would play in providing air and naval support for Iraq.

Iraqi and U.S. officials said several difficult issues remain, including whether U.S. troops will be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes.

The question of immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi legal jurisdiction – demanded by Washington and rejected by Baghdad – remained unresolved. Troop immunity, one U.S. official said, "is the red line for us." Officials said they were still discussing language that would make the distinction between on- and off-duty activities, with provisions allowing for some measure of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over soldiers accused of committing crimes while off-duty.

The fragile nature of security gains over the past year was evident in the secrecy surrounding Condoleezza Rice's one-day visit here, which was not announced until her arrival from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. U.S. negotiators hoped that her participation in direct talks with Mr. al-Maliki and visits with the Shiite and Sunni vice presidents would help finish the immunity and timeline discussions.

"It's a chance for me to sit with the prime minister and really get a sense of if there is anything else we need to do from Washington to get to closure" on the Iraq security accord, Dr. Rice said.

Steps to accord

Even though it appears that Iraq and the United States are close to a detailed agreement governing the U.S. withdrawal, there are several political steps to close the deal.

•Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's executive council will examine the parts of the text that negotiators have agreed to, as well as proposals to deal with immunity and other issues.

•The next step is consideration by a larger council of representatives from the leading political blocs.

•Then the agreement will be submitted to parliament, which is in summer recess until Sept. 9. The Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when all business slows amid fasting, also falls in September.

•A change in U.S. policy could come when a new president takes office in January. Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona has said he will continue current policy. His Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has said he will begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, to be completed within 16 months.

Iraq Withdrawal Thoughts

.If the Journal is right and we're about to sign an agreement to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, what does it mean domestically? For starters, I assume that the agreement allows for some kind of long-term "residual force," and I also assume there will be a bit of weasel wording about the withdrawal depending on conditions on the ground. Still, a document that commits both sides to pulling out troops from the cities by next summer and completing the rest of the withdrawal by 2011 is a big-time game changer. Here are a few miscellaneous thoughts:

1. This is very good news for Democrats. It means that our eventual withdrawal from Iraq will not only be a bipartisan action, it will have been the creation of a Republican president. This is going to make it almost impossible for conservatives to ramp up any kind of serious stab-in-the-back narrative against anti-war liberals.
   
   
2. Basic Obama spin: "I'm glad to see that President Bush has finally come around to my view etc. etc." This ought to be a big win for him: he visits Iraq, meets with Nouri al-Maliki, gets Maliki's endorsement for a near-term troop withdrawal, and then gets to applaud as President Bush signs on.
   
   
3. Looking ahead, it's also a big win for Obama if he wins in November. Instead of a bruising congressional battle on withdrawal starting in January, he can just continue along the path Bush has set out. At most he'll tweak it a bit, which he can do on his own and without expending a lot of political capital.
   
   
4. This is also good news for Dems in conservative districts, since it eliminates a campaign issue that potentially hurts them.
   
   
5. Basic McCain spin: "It's good news that Iraq is now secure enough that we can envision bringing our troops home." He'll also talk about how the surge deserves all the credit and he'll claim that 2011 is a totally different thing than Obama's plan to withdraw by 2010. This isn't great spin, but it's probably the best he's got.
   
   
6. Outside of spin alley, the news for McCain is mixed. It takes Iraq largely off the table as a partisan campaign issue, which might be good (the public supports withdrawal, so it's been an Achilles heel for him) or might be bad (it takes the spotlight off foreign affairs, which he considers his strong suit). Overall, though, it's got to be a negative for a guy who just a few months ago was talking about staying in Iraq for a hundred years.
   
   
7. I wonder what McCain's initial reaction to this is going to be? When rumors of an agreement like this were being floated last month, he insisted that he had talked to Maliki personally and he knew that Maliki didn't really want a timetable for withdrawal. Looks like he was wrong about that. Is he going to stick to that line, or, like Jerry Brown after Prop 13 passed in 1978, is he suddenly going to become withdrawal's greatest advocate?
   

Thursday should be interesting. At least it gives us something to talk about other than Obama's VP selection, anyway.

Grooming a female suicide bomber

From the jail cell she was sharing with her mother, sister and 1-year-old son, the young widow watched with a sardonic expression as the boy weaved unsteadily toward a visiting American soldier and lifted his arms to be carried.

"Aboud," she called out to the toddler, "tell them to release me."

The police say the matriarch, Ikran, used her two daughters, Asma and Ilaf, to recruit their girlfriends to blow themselves up in the name of the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq. Even though the women were terrified of the masked men who took over their neighborhood, they said they'd never do such a thing -- "Life is a gift from God."

Although it remains far from clear whether the women committed the crimes of which they were accused, the tale they shared from their barren cell offers a peek into the violent and claustrophobic world in which women are groomed to become suicide bombers.

As violence levels have plunged across Iraq, the number of attacks carried out by female suicide bombers has increased -- a potent threat that is especially difficult to counter. The gowns favored by devout Muslim women easily conceal explosives, and it is culturally unacceptable for the men who make up the bulk of the Iraqi security forces to frisk them.

Although such attacks are not new to Iraq, they were relatively rare until last year, when eight female bombers struck. This year, the number has jumped to 30, according to U.S. military records. In one particularly bloody day late last month, four women blew themselves up in Baghdad and in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing at least 44 people.

More women have carried out suicide bombings here in Diyala province than anywhere else in Iraq -- 15 this year alone. Iraqi commanders believe the Sunni Arab insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq has established networks in the province designed specifically to recruit women.

The ethnically and religiously mixed province east of Baghdad has long been a center of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which formed alliances here with Sunni tribesmen and nationalist political groups against Shiite militants. This is a world in which few women are educated, loyalty to family and tribe are paramount, and fear permeates relations with outsiders.

Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, known as emirs, managed to recruit entire clans to their cause by marrying into the families here. The women forced into these marriages are often passed around among emirs, said Saja Quadouri, who sits on the provincial council's security committee and is its only female member.

"They will get married to more than one man and get pregnant without knowing who the father is," she said. "Eventually, due to despair, hopelessness and fear, they get exploited to commit such crimes, as they become unwanted by society."

Other women are persuaded to perform a suicide mission to avenge the loss of a father, husband or brother, said a U.S. intelligence analyst, who asked not to be identified for security reasons. In tribal societies, the loss of male relatives typically leaves women without protection or means of survival.

Asma's marriage collapsed shortly before her husband died in a shootout; she says she does not know who killed him. Her father has spent the last three years in a U.S. detention facility on terrorism charges.

Squatting on a bed mat, Ikran, 50, described how the masked gunmen took over their neighborhood on the west side of Baqubah shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led regime in 2003. She asked that the family be identified by their first names only, to avoid shaming the tribe.

"People say they were displaced families from other neighborhoods who came to our area and tried to control it," said Ikran, a formidable woman in a somber black robe and green head scarf. "The first thing they did was kill several people and leave the bodies in the traffic circle, so everyone would see."

The militants cruised the neighborhood in search of young men to stand at checkpoints and turned up at schools, where they provided instruction at gunpoint on their extreme interpretation of Islam.

"They told the whole school that we must cover our faces and . . . wear gloves," said Ikran's younger daughter, Ilaf. The pretty teen with henna-tinted fingernails said she dropped out of class because she was terrified by their frequent visits. Just 15, she is engaged to marry a neighbor's son.

In the womb-like safety of the cell, Ikran scoffed at the militants' strictures and lit up a cigarette, which they would have regarded as sacrilege. But she said she never dared cross the militants in public.

"We were afraid of them," Ikran said. "Sometimes they would ask us, 'Are we good?' Of course we said yes. Otherwise we would have been killed."

When U.S. forces arrested Ikran's husband, Dawoud, on terrorism charges three years ago, she said the family retreated behind closed doors and rarely ventured outside their home.

"We can't think why anyone would accuse us," she said. "Iraqis will do anything for money."

Iraqi investigators conceded that the evidence against them was thin. Police found no explosives during the July 23 raid, and there was no residue on the women's hands.

All the police found was a wad of insurgent propaganda stashed in the roof of an outside toilet, including appeals to kill U.S. and Iraqi forces signed by the Islamic State of Iraq, a self-styled caliphate established by the militants. There was also a list of women's names and telephone numbers, and a letter written by Asma to her father, in which she speaks of being reunited in the next life.

Police suggested that the women may have been seeking revenge for their men or may have been motivated by financial pressure to work for the insurgency.

When Asma, 27, returned to her mother four months pregnant, it was a humiliation for the family as well as a financial blow. Ikran has struggled to make ends meet since her husband, a Health Ministry employee, was detained at Camp Bucca. The government gives her half his salary, and there were times when she couldn't collect the money because of the fighting.

Days after their arrest, the women were brought one by one before an investigative judge to determine whether there were grounds to prosecute them.

Asma trembled slightly as she confronted the judge in a dingy police office, where the sharp smell of urine mingled with a sickly perfume.

"Do you work for the Al Qaeda people?" he asked. "Did you help any fighters or armed groups?"

"No," she replied. "I didn't do anything wrong."

She said she didn't know how the fliers had gotten into the outhouse, that the names on the list were just friends, and that her letter had nothing to do with the insurgency.

When Ilaf began repeating the same answers, the judge cut the session short and dictated a statement to a clerk for the girl to sign.

"I don't want to waste time," he said. He remanded the women into custody pending further investigation; they were released Aug. 7.

The women's true intentions may never be known. But when asked what she thought of the women who carry out suicide attacks, Ikran responded firmly: "God gave us life. Who are we to take it away?"