Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay

[water]

Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
March 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.

Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money.
Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding that the Pentagon explain its plans for the bases, and they unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for base agreements with the Iraqi government.

"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.

Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The debate in Congress comes as concerns grow over how long the U.S. intends to keep forces in Iraq, a worry amplified when President Bush earlier this week said that a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq would not occur during his term.

Long-term U.S. bases in Iraq would also be problematic in the Middle East, where they could lend credence to charges that the U.S. motive for the invasion was to seize land and oil. And they could also feed debate about the appropriate U.S. relationship with Iraq after Baghdad's new government fully assumes control.

State Department and Pentagon officials have insisted that the bases being constructed in Iraq will eventually be handed over to the Iraqi government.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said on Iraqi television last week that the U.S. had "no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq."

And Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We're building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis."

The bulk of the Pentagon's emergency spending for military construction over the last three years in Iraq has focused on three or four large-scale air and logistics bases that dot the center of the country.

The administration is seeking $348 million for base construction as part of its 2006 emergency war funding bill. The Senate has not yet acted on the request.

By far the most funding has gone to a mammoth facility north of Baghdad in Balad, which includes an air base and a logistics center. The U.S. Central Command said it intended to use the base as the military's primary hub in the region as it gradually hands off Baghdad airport to civilian authorities.

Through the end last year, the administration spent about $230 million in emergency funds on the Balad base, and its new request includes $17.8 million for new roads that can accommodate hulking military vehicles and a 12.4-mile-long, 13-foot-high security fence.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted in a report last year that many of the funds already spent, including for the facilities at Balad, suggested a longer-term U.S. presence.

Projects at the base include an $18-million aircraft parking ramp and a $15-million airfield lighting system that has allowed commanders to make Balad a strategic air center for the region; a $2.9-million Special Operations compound, isolated from the rest of the base and complete with landing pads for helicopters and airplanes, where classified payloads can be delivered; and a $7-million mail distribution building.

Other bases also are being developed in ways that could lend them to permanent use.

This year's request also includes $110 million for Tallil air base outside the southeastern city of Nasiriya, a sprawling facility in the shadow of the ruins of the biblical city of Ur. Only $11 million has been spent so far, but the administration's new request appears to envision Tallil as another major transportation hub, with new roads, a new dining hall for 6,000 troops — about two Army brigades — and a new center to organize and support large supply convoys.

The administration also has spent $50 million for Camp Taji, an Army base north of Baghdad, and $46.3 million on Al Asad air base in the western desert.

These large bases are being built at the same time that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on separate bases for the growing Iraqi military. According to the U.S. Central Command and data obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, for example, about $165 million has been spent to build an Iraqi base near the southern town of Numaniya and more than $150 million for a northern base at the old Iraqi army's Al Kasik facility.

Rep. James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees military construction, said his panel was concerned that money the Pentagon was ostensibly seeking for short-term emergency needs actually was going to projects that were not urgent but long-term in nature.


Here are four of the bases in Iraq for which the Bush administration has planned upgrades. Money spent through 2005 was granted through emergency spending bills since 2003:

1. Al Asad air base

By some accounts the second largest military air center in Iraq and the main supply base for troops in Al Anbar Province, which includes the insurgent strongholds of Fallouja and Ramadi. It houses about 17,000 troops, including a large contingent of Marines.
Spending: Unknown*

Bush 2006 request: $46.3 million

2. Balad air base

The U.S. military's main air transportation and supply hub in Iraq, with two giant runways. Also known as Camp Anaconda, it is the largest support base in the country, with about 22,500 troops and several thousand contractors.

Spending: $228.7 million*

Bush 2006 request: $17.8 million.

3. Camp Taji

One of the largest facilities for U.S. ground forces in Iraq, the base also serves as home to about 15,000 Iraqi security forces. It has the largest military shopping center (PX) in the country.

Spending: $49.6 million*

Bush 2006 request: None

4. Tallil air base

An increasingly important air and transportation hub, with a growing population of coalition troops and contractors. It has become a key stopping point for supply convoys moving north from Kuwait and is close to one of the Iraqi army's main training facilities.

Spending: $10.8 million*

Bush 2006 request: $110.3 million

*Through 2005


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq24mar24,1,6914932.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[GET YOU HOT]

These figures are astronomical
I wonder how in fact, we as a nation, United States will keep afloat or better yet put up with this "President" for the next couple years.

 

[water]

UPDATE

U.S. Building Massive Embassy in Baghdad


By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Fri Apr 14, 4:58 PM ET

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

"We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial.

The Republican Palace, where U.S. Embassy functions are temporarily housed in cubicles among the chandelier-hung rooms, is less than a mile away in the 4-square-mile zone, an enclave of American and Iraqi government offices and lodgings ringed by miles of concrete barriers.

The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "Red Zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq.

This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism.

"The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it's indicative of the work facing the United States here.

"It's somewhat self-evident that there's going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several years," he said in Washington.

Higgins noted that large numbers of non-diplomats work at the mission — hundreds of military personnel and dozens of FBI agents, for example, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments.

They sleep in hundreds of trailers or "containerized" quarters scattered around the Green Zone. But next year embassy staff will move into six apartment buildings in the new complex, which has been under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007.

Iraq's interim government transferred the land to U.S. ownership in October 2004, under an agreement whose terms were not disclosed.

"Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall.

Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion — the actual embassy offices.

Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies.

The designs aren't publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it will be a self-sufficient and "hardened" domain, to function in the midst of Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.

It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.

Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.

Higgins said the work, under way on all parts of the project, is more than one-third complete

Looks like we are there to stay........

"No its not about oil, Sadaam is a bad man"

 

[MASTERBAKER]

New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq

By Basil Adas, Correspondent

June 03, 2008.


A new agreement is likely to give American forces permanent military bases in Iraq

Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.


LINK:
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10218150.html

 

[actinanass]

Re: New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq

Love it, or hate it. This is what I called a "necessary evil".

It should work out.

 

[African Herbsman]

US's trump card for perpetual Iraq occupation

Follow the money.

US's trump card for perpetual Iraq occupation is its 50bn dollar reserves


London, June 6 : The US is holding around 50 billion dollars of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with a view to pressurizing Baghdad to sign a secret deal prolonging American occupation.

<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8582020459985618"; google_ad_width = 250; google_ad_height = 250; google_ad_format = "250x250_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; //2007-12-04: News 250x250 google_ad_channel = "3915836862"; google_color_border = "FFFFFF"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "CC0000"; google_color_text = "333333"; google_color_url = "0066CC"; google_ui_features = "rc:10"; //--> </script> <script style="display: none;" type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>
US President George W Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors in order to keep Iraq under control for an indefinite period.

The Independent reported that a secret deal is being negotiated in Baghdad that would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

US negotiators are using the existence of 20bn dollars in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time on Thursday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity.

The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of 20billion dollars. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by July31.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement, but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. US Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq.

Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

The accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so that he can declare a military victory and claim that his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.

http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=69729

 

[QueEx]

Further Update:

<font size="5"><center>U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq,
Shiite lawmakers say</font size></center>

McClatchy Newspapers
By Leila Fadel
Monday, June 9, 2008


BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."

"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.

"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.

The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."

Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.

But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is insteadn withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.

U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."

"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html

 

[GET YOU HOT]

All of this information, adds up to a big takeover, mainly Iran, NWO, will not give up...

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4"><center>Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.S.</font size><font size="4">
Premier Rejects Terms of Proposed Bases;
and Cleric Reactivates Militia</center></font size>

Washington Post
June 14, 2008

BAGHDAD, June 13 -- The Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

• No Deal On Bases
  
  During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had "reached a dead end." While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.

The moves by two of Iraq's most powerful Shiite leaders underscore how the presence of U.S. troops has become a central issue for Iraqi politicians as they position themselves for provincial elections later this year. Iraqis across the political spectrum have grown intolerant of the U.S. presence, but the dominant Shiite parties -- including Maliki's Dawa party -- are especially fearful of an electoral challenge from new, grass-roots groups.

"All the politicians are trying to prove that they care more about Iraqis than they do about Americans -- otherwise they know the people and the voters will not support them," said Ala Maaki, a senior lawmaker with Iraqi's largest Sunni political party. "I think we could see al-Maliki and Moqtada Sadr trying to one-up the other today and see who can take the strongest stand against the Americans."

As the controversy over U.S. troops grew in the region, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari scheduled the first high-level Iraqi government contacts with the two U.S. presidential contenders. Zebari will meet privately Sunday with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who supports administration policy -- and hold a telephone conference Monday with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has said he would withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

• Sadr Calls for Mahdi Army to Attack U.S. Troops
  
  Maliki's comments came as Sadr called for a new armed wing of his Mahdi Army militia to fight U.S. troops. Sadr had ordered the militia to cease carrying weapons last August -- a leading factor in the recent decline in violence -- although U.S. military officials have asserted that renegade militia units have continued the fight under instructions from Iran.

Sadr aides, some of whom appeared surprised by the cleric's announcement, said he wanted to issue the order now to avoid seeming as if he was responding to a U.S.-Iraqi agreement if one is reached by the July deadline.

Salah al-Obaidi, Sadr's chief spokesman, said the order was essentially a full-scale reorganization of the Mahdi Army, transforming it from a militia into a permanent peaceful organization with a small armed wing of several hundred or so members. He said the cease-fire for the rest of the movement would remain in force.

The new group, Sadr's statement said, would operate in "total secrecy" and attack only American forces. "The resistance will be restricted to a group authorized by a written letter from us soon," it said. "Arms will be restricted to them and they may only point them towards the occupier."

Bilateral negotiations began in March over two U.S.-drafted accords: a status-of-forces agreement, or SOFA, governing legal protections and responsibilities of U.S. troops, and a "strategic framework" of the overall U.S.-Iraq political and military relationship. Iraq has rejected allowing unilateral U.S. authority to conduct military operations and control nearly 60 bases, and to arrest and detain Iraqi citizens. Other provisions would have given the United States control over Iraqi airspace and borders and granted immunity to U.S. troops and civilian security contractors from Iraqi laws and prosecution.



Iraqi's Reject 'Contractor Immunity'

Bush administration negotiators have since revised some of the provisions of the SOFA, agreeing to high-level coordination of military and arrest operations, fine-tuning the extent of U.S. operational control of airspace and borders, and proposing that immunity for contractors be granted only for actions taken during official U.S. operations.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, Jordan's capital, Maliki indicated that the proposed compromise on immunity for contractors was insufficient. "We could not give amnesty to a soldier carrying arms on our ground," he said. "We will never give it."


But, Iraqis Want 'Protection' ?

Maliki also raised an issue that is of deep concern to Congress, saying that Baghdad expected a firm U.S. commitment to protect Iraq from foreign aggression. Although that promise was made in an outline of the strategic framework signed by Maliki and Bush in November, the administration has since assured U.S. lawmakers that it is a "nonbinding" agreement that does not require congressional ratification.

In addition to ending the U.N. mandate, Maliki said, "what we wish is . . . that if Iraq is subject to a foreign aggression it would be defended. And on the American side that was abandoned as well. So we reached a clear point of disagreement."

Top U.S. officials have said they still expect the agreements to be concluded by the end of July, but Maliki said he was "astonished by those who are talking about how close the agreement is to be signed," he said.

In an indication of the conflicting pressures on Maliki's government and the differing audiences it must appeal to, Zebari told the United Nations on Friday that Iraq was not yet capable of defending itself and that he was optimistic about the talks.

"There is bound to be statement, counterstatements, positions and so on," the Iraqi foreign minister told reporters after speaking to the Security Council. "This may be part of the negotiating tactic also. I'm hopeful . . . because Iraq does need, you see, this agreement."

Senior Iraqi officials have indicated that if there is no agreement, Iraq may ask the United Nations to extend its current mandate beyond the end of the year. A text of Zebari's prepared remarks to the Security Council, provided by the Iraqi U.N. mission, included a call to "end [the U.N. presence] in our country" and a "call upon the international community to free Iraq" from U.N. control. Lines were drawn through those phrases, and they were left out of Zebari's statement as delivered. The expiration of the U.N. mandate, in force since May 2003, poses problems for Iraq beyond the security situation. U.N. resolutions -- and an executive order by President Bush -- protect Iraqi government funds from international legal claims dating from the Saddam Hussein era.

More than $30 billion in Iraqi Central Bank reserves are held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The bank also houses the Development Fund for Iraq, through which all of Iraq's oil revenue is funneled before it can be spent by the government. The fund was established in 2003 by the U.S. occupation authority and later taken over by the Iraqi government under the oversight of the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its balance fluctuates and is currently about $20 billion.

The fund ensures that a portion of Iraqi funds are paid as compensation to Kuwait for Hussein's 1990 invasion of that country, under a mechanism set up before the 2003 invasion, and that Iraqi money is spent for the Iraqi people and reconstruction.

U.S. officials have denied reports that the administration has threatened to use the Iraqi money to pressure the Iraqi government. "At no time have we suggested that our interest in preserving Iraqi funds from attachment or other action within the U.S. . . . would be a lever or issue" in the negotiations, a senior U.S. official said.

The Iraqis, another U.S. official said, "have been slow" to set up an alternative arrangement for their funds and risk legal claims against them without U.N. protection. "Our advice [to Baghdad] has been to get some really good lawyers," the official said.

DeYoung reported from Washington. Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and special correspondents Saad al-Izzi and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302019.html?hpid=topnews