Long-term deal between Iraq, U.S. loses ground

BAGHDAD — A proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would set the conditions for a long-term U.S. troop presence appears increasingly in trouble, facing growing resistance from the Iraqi government, bipartisan opposition in Congress and strong questioning from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

President Bush is trying to finish the agreement before he leaves office, and senior U.S. officials insist publicly that negotiations can be completed by a July 31 target date.

But that seems increasingly doubtful, and in Baghdad and Washington, D.C., there is growing speculation that a United Nations mandate for U.S.-led military operations in Iraq may have to be extended after it expires at the end of 2008.

Congress has grown more restive over the negotiations on a status-of-forces agreement that would set out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries.

Senior lawmakers of both parties have demanded more information and questioned the Bush administration's insistence that no legislative approval is required.

Six senators, including the chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees and their ranking minority members, have written Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the past week asking for more information. White House, State Department and Pentagon officials briefed staff members on the talks Tuesday.

But top Democrats and Republicans complain that Bush is rushing the negotiations to try to tie his successor's hands.

A spokesman for Obama, D-Ill., said any long-term U.S. security commitment to Iraq must be subject to congressional approval; alternatively, the administration should seek an extension of the current U.N. mandate. Obama wants a new administration to make it "absolutely clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," spokesman Bill Burton said.

Some Iraqi parliamentarians are saying Iraq has a third option besides extending the U.N. mandate or agreeing to the proposal: telling the Americans to go home.

"If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye U.S. troops! We don't need you here anymore,' " said Sami al-Askary, a senior Shiite politician who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The willingness to consider calling for the departure of U.S. troops represents a major shift for members of Iraq's U.S.-backed government. Al-Maliki this week visited Iran, where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States.

Failing to reach agreements this year would be a strategic setback for the Bush administration, which says such a presence is essential to promote stability. Without agreements or an extension, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq.

Bush has spoken directly to al-Maliki about the issue in recent days and instructed his negotiating team to show greater flexibility, Iraqi politicians said. U.S. officials over the weekend circulated a draft without many of the most controversial demands, buoying hopes that a deal could be reached, according to Iraq lawmakers.

They say the Bush administration is demanding concessions that are unacceptable, among them: dozens of semipermanent bases from which U.S. forces can launch missions with no prior consent from Iraq's government; control of Iraq's air space; and no guarantees the United States will defend Iraq against a foreign attack.

The United States has portrayed opposition to the agreement as limited to Iranian officials and followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.