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.

Iraqi government offers Obama hints of backing on combat troop withdrawals by 2010

Iraq's top leaders hosted U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday and offered an apparent sign of shared purpose on hopes of withdrawing American combat troops from the country by 2010.

The comments by Iraq's government spokesman — as the Illinois senator toured Iraq for the first time in more than two years — stopped short of setting any fixed timetable or any open endorsement of Obama's pledge to pull out combat forces in 16 months.

But it roughly mirrors Obama's schedule and offered another glimpse of Iraq's growing confidence to push for a broad framework on cutting U.S. troop levels as violence in Iraq drops and Iraqi security forces expand their roles.

"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said after Obama met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share "a common interest ... to schedule the withdrawal of American troops."

"I'd be happy if we reach an agreement to say, for instance, the 31st of December 2010" would mark the departure of the last U.S. combat unit, he said — then noting that any such goal could be revised depending on threats and the pace of training for Iraqi security forces.

In Washington, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Iraqis are driving harder in negotiations on troop levels, but the United States will resist any "arbitrary" timing.

"It will not be a date that you just pluck out of thin air. It will not be something that Americans say, 'We're going to do — we're going to leave at this date,' which is what some have suggested," she said.

The Bush administration has refused to set specific troop level targets, but last week offered to discuss a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.

Perino acknowledged the Iraqis might be trying to use the U.S. presidential election for leverage in negotiations over the future of the American military mission in Iraq.

"I think that a lot of other people look through the lens of a 2008 presidential election," Perino said. "Might they be? Sure. I mean, it's possible."

Obama made no detailed statements on his meetings, which included Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"Excellent conversation," he said as he left talks with al-Hashemi in his gold-hued reception room and promised to give his full impressions after his stop in Iraq wraps up Tuesday and he heads to Jordan and then Israel.

"Very constructive," Obama added after leaving a meeting with al-Maliki — who was quoted last week by a German magazine apparently supporting Obama's 16-month withdrawal proposal. The government claimed his remarks were misunderstood.

It was the third leg of Obama's tour of the region, which has included stops in Kuwait and Afghanistan.

The counterpoint was clear: Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and views the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan as America's most critical fight.

But Iraq is not the same place as when Obama last visited in January 2006.

Both Sunni insurgents, including al-Qaida in Iraq, and Shiite militias have suffered significant blows. And security forces in Baghdad — once the scene of near daily car bombs and sectarian killings — has made clear gains since last year's troop build up of nearly 30,000 soldiers.

Obama's challenger, Senator John McCain, has tried to hammer Obama on his critical remarks before the so-called "surge."

In an interview Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," McCain said he hoped Obama would now "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."

"This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain said. "He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning."

All five surge brigades have left Iraq, but there are still about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, more than in early 2007.

Obama was scheduled to hold briefings with senior American diplomats and military commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, who directs U.S. forces in Iraq.

Obama — traveling in a congressional delegation with senators Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska — first arrived in the city of Basra in Iraq's mostly Shiite south.

Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militia believed linked to Iran.

In Baghdad, the delegation traveled in convoys of black SUVs with tinted windows. Obama attended some meeting wearing a dark suit and tie despite temperatures well above 43 degrees Celsius (109 Fahrenheit).

Security around the city was not noticeably tightened, but it's difficult to gauge in a place with permanent checkpoints, concrete blast walls and military helicopter surveillance. No major attacks were reported around the capital.

Obama's foreign stops, which will conclude with a swing through Europe, were seen as an attempt to burnish his foreign policy credentials and address challenges by McCain that he is too inexperienced to lead in a time of war and global risks.

It also gave Obama a taste of some of the difficulties in Iraq that the next president will inherit. Important negotiations on a pact defining the future U.S. military commitment in Iraq has been stalled.

American diplomats hoped to reach a final accord by the end of the month, but it now seems the goal is a stopgap "bridge" document that would maintain the status for U.S. forces once a U.N. mandate on their presence expires at the end of the year.

There also are pockets of concern around the country.

Bombings and slayings have been creeping higher in the northern city of Mosul, the last main urban stronghold for al-Qaida in Iraq. Insurgents also remain entrenched in the Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad and a main gateway to the city. Iraqi authorities have announced plans to send more forces into the area.

Gen. Petraeus insists U.S. needs to stay in Iraq indefinitely

Gen. David Petraeus said Tuesday that at least 140,000 U.S. troops should remain indefinitely in Iraq - and also appeared to move the goalposts for defining the success of their mission.

Despite genuine gains, "We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible," he cautioned the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. troop surge "significantly reduced" what had been the main threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq, Petraeus said. But the effort to stabilize the country was in peril from so-called "Special Groups" of terrorists trained and funded by Iran who were behind the recent violence in Basra and Baghdad, he added. "Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Petraeus said in marathon testimony before two Senate committees.

He said the new main threat from Iran influenced him in deciding to stop troop withdrawals at the end of July when the remaining surge troops come home to leave U.S. force levels at about 140,000.

Additional withdrawals would stop completely for at least 45 days, Petraeus said, and would be followed by a "process of assessment" to determine when pullouts could be renewed.

Despite repeated attempts by senators of both parties to gauge how long his assessment might last, Petraeus refused to be pinned down.

"Could that be a month, could that be two months, could that be four months?" asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

It could be less, but, "It could be more than that," Petraeus said. "Again, it's when the conditions are met that we can make a recommendation for further reductions."

Petraeus later said withdrawals would be "conditions-based" and "it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it would be or that is when it would be."

Petraeus' statements virtually guaranteed that the next President will inherit a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq and also ensured the war will remain a major issue in the November election.

President Bush will back up Petraeus in meetings today with congressional leaders, who have acknowledged they lack the votes to change his policy.

Bush also was to make a daytime Iraq address tomorrow, announcing that U.S. troop tours in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reduced from 15 to 12 months.

Democrats on the committees generally pressed Petraeus without success for a withdrawal timetable, while Republicans deferred to the four-star officer.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was an exception. In tones of resignation, Collins said that "success always seems to be around the corner" in Iraq.