Maliki said for the first time Monday that Iraq was seeking such a timetable as part of its negotiations with Washington on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008.

But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the talks were aimed at reaching agreement on a framework for future US-Iraqi relations and on the arrangements that will govern the US military presence.

"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal," he said.

"As Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker has said, we are looking at conditions, and not calendars -- and both sides are in agreement on this point," he added.

Earlier Monday, however, Maliki told Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates that it was seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of the agreement, the prime minister's office said in a statement.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," the statement quoted Maliki as saying.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

Asked about the prime minister's comments, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters: "With respect to timetables I would say the same thing I would say as respects to the security situation -- it is dependent on conditions on the ground."

Whitman said the United States had made clear "that we have no long term desires to have forces permanently stationed in Iraq."

"But timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he said. "In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it's usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground."

At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment without further clarification of Maliki's remarks.

"I've seen the same press reports that you have, but I haven't yet had an opportunity to get greater clarity as to exactly to what Mr. Maliki was referring or if, in fact, that's an accurate reporting of what he said," McCormack said.

A UN mandate that provides the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq expires at the end of the year.

The two sides have agreed in principle to sign a Status of Forces Agreement by July.

But the negotiations have been more difficult than expected, and the prospect of an agreement in the final months of the Bush administration has aroused controversy in political circles in both Iraq and the United States.

Shiite and Sunni politicians have raised objections, and Democrats in the US Congress have expressed fears an agreement would tie the hands of the next president.

At the same time, the talks come amid a dramatic improvement in the security situation in Iraq that has allowed a drawdown of US forces, which now number 146,000, down from over 160,000.

The last of five additional combat brigades sent in last year to quell spiralling sectarian violence is scheduled to depart this month.

The US commander, General David Petraeus, will review security conditions with an eye to further reductions this year.

earlier related report
Iraq demands pullout timetable in US defence pact talks
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday he is negotiating a deal with Washington that will for the first time set a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign forces as part of a framework for a US troop presence into next year.

It was the first time that Baghdad's Shiite-led government has made a pullout deadline a condition for a promised new agreement with the United States for a troop presence into 2009.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

It was the first time that the Shiite prime minister had specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal, something that President George W. Bush has repeatedly refused to set, and his comments drew a swift rebuff from the US defence department.

"With respect to timetables I would say the same thing I would say as respects to the security situation -- it is dependent on conditions on the ground," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters in Washington.

Whitman said the United States had made clear "that we have no long term desires to have forces permanently stationed in Iraq.

"But timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he said. "In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it's usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground."

Bush and Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq by the end of July to set the basis for a US troop presence beyond December this year when a UN mandate runs out.

But discussions appeared to be deadlocked last month amid strong opposition from Iraqi politicians both Sunni and Shiite, with some Shiite leaders denouncing the proposed agreement as "eternal slavery."

Shiite radical leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who has a broad popular base among the Shiite poor in cities across central and southern Iraq, has been particularly outspoken in his demands for a US withdrawal timetable.

"We encourage any good move that could help the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq or arrive at a timetable for their departure," Sadr spokesman Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi told AFP in the Shiite shrine city of Najaf.

"We support the government in its bid to achieve this."

Iraqi politicians have not only bristled at the duration of any continuing defence pact with the United States, they have also expressed reservations about how many bases Washington should retain, what powers the US military should continue to hold to detain Iraqi civilians, and what immunity US troops should have from US law.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has said that Washington has agreed to one key demand from Baghdad, the scrapping of immunity from prosecution in Iraq of the tens of thousands of foreign security contractors operating in the country.

Since the 2003 invasion, foreign security firms have operated virtually outside the law, neither subject to the Iraq legal system nor to US military tribunals -- an exemption which has been a persistent source of outrage to ordinary Iraqis.

Last Wednesday, Zebari said if the new US security pact were not finalised by July 31, there were two options for Iraq.

One is to enter into a substitute bilateral agreement, the other to request the UN to extend its mandate by another year, he said.

Zebari stressed that the United States could not stay in Iraq without an international legal framework, while any security arrangement would be for "one or two years" only, and not for decades.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Iraq: The first technology war of the 21st century

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News