Gates, Rice defend US-Iraq security agreement

Images (showing 1 of 2 photos)

The security agreement between U.S. and Iraq provides both the time and authority needed for American troops to train Iraqi forces and pursue terrorists, senior Bush administration officials said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were explaining and defending the agreement in classified briefings to Congress, some members of which are skeptical of the agreement that lays out U.S. troop withdrawal timelines and gives Iraq limited legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces and military contractors who commit crimes.

The 21-page document was signed on Monday in Baghdad by U.S. and Iraqi officials after months of painstaking negotiations, but it still must be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Tempers ran high when debate began in the Iraqi parliament this week, including a clash between supporters and opponents on Wednesday.

Although the Bush administration contends congressional approval is not required on the U.S. side, the White House dispatched Gates and Rice to Capitol Hill to assuage lawmakers' concerns as the clock ticks down on the existing United Nations mandate for the troops' presence in Iraq. The U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The agreement sets a June 30, 2009, deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities and towns and a Dec. 31, 2011, deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, according to a copy obtained by the AP.

The pact generally calls for the U.S. to coordinate military operations with the Iraqis and aid the country in deterring any security threats, but it also says that "Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries."

Officials dismissed suggestions that the U.S. has retreated on its initial vehement opposition to withdrawal deadlines, insisting that any troop drawdown be based on security conditions. Instead, they said that change is due to improved security and better Iraqi forces.

"Their competence, their confidence has increased tremendously. And so, that's why we're able to work on a date," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. She added that the document was a negotiation and, "we asked for some things that we didn't get; they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Geoff Morrell echoed those comments.

"The security situation has improved so dramatically, and the Iraqi security forces have improved so dramatically that we are confident that, if things continue to trend as they have been, our services will not be needed in Iraq, come 2012," Morrell told reporters.

He said officials believe the agreement both respects Iraqi sovereignty and provides U.S. forces with the authority to continue to go after insurgents, while still giving the Iraqis the training and equipment they need to take over security of their own country.

The agreement also gives Iraq an element of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and military contractors who commit "grave premeditated felonies" while they are off-base and off-duty. A list of those crimes is to be compiled by a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee. The United States, however, would retain custody of such soldiers and also determine if they were on or off duty during any alleged crime.

Both Rice and Gates have said they would not be pushing the agreement if they did not fully support it, but members of Congress, including Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., are troubled by some provisions and said they have had little time to review the agreement.

"Here we are with the clock ticking, running out. There's been no input from Congress and the American people have been kept in the dark," said Delahunt, who was chairing a hearing on the issue Wednesday ahead of the testimony from Rice and Gates. "I still have serious reservations about this agreement."

Delahunt and others, notably House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., have expressed concern about the "vague" nature of the agreement.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he has some concerns about the agreement, particularly on the provisions providing immunity for U.S. troops and authorizing US combat operations. He would not elaborate, citing classification concerns.

But South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham said he is not concerned about the provisions in the agreement that give the Iraqi government the right to prosecute U.S. troops for crimes committed when they are off duty and off base.

"We decide when someone's off duty, off base," he said.

The agreement calls for the United States to hand over a list of all detainees to the Iraqi government. The government will issue warrants for the prisoners it wants, with the remainder to be set free except under exceptional circumstances.

Graham said he had concerns about what will be done with all the roughly 16,000 prisoners, especially foreign fighters, that are currently in U.S. custody in Iraq, particularly given that Iraqi prisons are already over capacity.

"I don't know, you've got some really bad guys," Graham told reporters after leaving the briefing.

The agreement requires the U.S. to inform Iraq within 24 hours if it detains any new prisoners and be ready to hand them over. However, the Iraqi government may let U.S. forces continue holding them, Graham said.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Back To Top

	Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - before Iraq's Parliament is through with it	McClatchy	Thu Nov 20	2
	Under Iraq troop pact, U.S. can't leave any forces behind	mcclatchydc.com	Wed Nov 19	14
	Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq	mcclatchydc.com	Thu Nov 20	21