Dead end?

Iraq's prime minister Nouri al Maliki has reportedly said that negotiations over the long-term security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq are at a dead end. American proposals "violate Iraqi sovereignty," he said.  While the prime minister's words offer no hope that an agreement will be reached, an al Maliki adviser says things may not be so bad.

A senior al-Maliki adviser, Yassin Majid, said at Amman that despite the "impasse," negotiations were "still continuing" in a bid to overcome the deadlock.

What was rejected was the "preliminary draft" presented by both sides, "but there are alternative ideas that will be presented to the negotiating table at an upcoming meeting," he said.

He declined to say when the meeting was to take place, but other Iraqi officials accompanying the prime minister said the impasse came about "because the ceiling of American requests were extremely high."

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the main point of contention was the issue of the continued American troop presence in Iraq.

Failure to strike the security deal soon would leave the future of the American military presence in Iraq to the next administration. Mr. al-Maliki's stance increased doubts the deal could be struck before the upcoming American presidential election.

Iraqi opposition to the deal has mainly focused on concerns that the agreement would cement American military, political, and economic domination of Iraq.

American officials have refused to release details of the talks while they are still under way but have expressed their respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

The top State Department adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, told reporters this week that the two sides would meet a July target date to finish the agreement, which must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

President Bush said this week in Germany that he was also confident that a deal would be reached.

We'll see fairly soon if this amounts to anything more than haggling.

Comments

[Fritz]

It would be so excellent if no agreement can be reached. That would solve the Iraq mess once and for all -- we leave.

And wouldn't Congress have to sign off on the agreement? All they have to do is not sign off -- and we leave.

[Tom Bowler]

"Excellent" is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is the "Iraq mess" is well on its way to resolution now that Maliki has taken on the Shiite militias and the Iraqi Army and Police have stepped up to take on the lion's share of the fighting. Oil production has finally surpassed pre-war levels, the Iraqi economy is rapidly growing, reconciliation is very nearly a done deal as the various factions unite to insist on Iraq's sovereignty.

Isn't that "excellent" in your book? Or is the only "excellent" outcome the utter failure and collapse of the Iraqi government? Would a failed state and a resurgent al Qaeda work best for you? Then you could say how Bush has made the world less safe, and have something to base it on other than the typically mindless liberal speculation.

As far as congress withholding its approval. That will probably work the same as when congress threatened to withhold funding for the war.

[Fritz]

What would be your reaction to an American government that signed an agreement giving a foreign power permanent bases in America and exempted that power's soldiers and civilians from American law? I assume you would take up arms against such a government.

These are completely unacceptable demands apparently being made by the American government -- not just unacceptable to any Iraqi, but unacceptable to me as an American.