Iraq becomes tougher negotiator

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's quest for a deal with Iraq that would formally authorize an unlimited U.S. troop presence there well beyond President Bush's tenure appears to be unraveling.

The irony is that it may be a victim of the administration's successes in the war.

Emboldened by recent military successes, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is now openly demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, eager to assert its sovereignty.

The Iraqi demands have put Bush in a politically awkward spot.

The president has explicitly opposed any binding timetables — either from the Iraqis or from the war's critics here at home — but he also pledged less than a month ago to abide by the will of Iraq's leaders.

"You know, of course, we're there at their invitation," Bush said during his recent European tour. "This is a sovereign nation."

Even senior U.S. commanders now say Iraq is taking on more responsibility for security after years of halting and uncertain progress.

Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who until recently oversaw the training of Iraqi forces, told Congress on Wednesday that Iraq's ground forces could be fully functional as soon as the middle of next year.

That, along with Iraqi military successes in Basra, Sadr City in Baghdad and Mosul, has made al-Maliki's government seem far less vulnerable than it once did.

As a result, officials and analysts say, Iraq is far less willing than it once might have been to accept every U.S. demand in negotiations now under way to establish the legal status of foreign troops in Iraq after the end of this year.

Iraq's negotiators already have rebuffed the administration's initial demand that all U.S. contractors in Iraq, including the security guards of such companies as Blackwater, receive blanket immunity from prosecution, one administration official familiar with the talks said.

On Monday, al-Maliki also suggested Iraq might prefer a less sweeping, shorter-term agreement than the long-term one he and Bush signed off on last November, when his government was not as stable or assertive as it is today.

The failure to reach a robust agreement would be a rebuke to Bush in his waning months in office just as his strategy to send thousands of extra troops to Iraq beginning last year — the "surge," as it became known — is bearing fruit. That could force the administration to compromise even more.

While the administration almost certainly will not accept a rigid, written timetable for withdrawal, one U.S. official said Wednesday that the White House might have to accept some language in any agreement that reflected Iraqi desires for an end of the U.S. military presence.