Two months ago, it looked like the Iraqis had succeeded in forcing the Bush administration to go along with a troop withdrawal timetable similar to that proposed by Senator Barack Obama.

That was then, apparently. The latest reports of secret talks to replace the U.N. mandate authorizing the occupation of Iraq with a treaty indicate that the two sides remain deadlocked. The mandate expires December 31, and so far Iraq has opposed any renewal of it.

[N]egotiations were supposed to have been wrapped up in July. With the clock ticking, the two sides still cannot agree on two key issues — legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and contractors and a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal.

The Iraqis insist on the right to try American troops accused of crimes — at least when alleged offenses are committed off U.S. bases. The Iraqis want the last American soldiers to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Baghdad government asks them to stay.

U.S. negotiators want the withdrawal tied to the security situation rather than dates. Both sides describe their positions as “red lines.”

“The Americans show no interest in committing themselves to any deadline or timetable and they think that such process depends on the situation on the ground,” Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said.

Privately, Pentagon officials closely involved in the talks say they are not optimistic that a final deal will be clinched anytime soon. A top U.S. official said there is even less reason for optimism now than in recent months.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to characterize the closed-door talks.

Iraqi officials familiar with the talks are no less pessimistic.

“Negotiations are focusing on a very hard stage,” al-Maliki aide Sami al-Askari told The Associated Press. “I think it will be rejected by parliament as it stands now.”

Without any concessions from the Americans, Maliki’s Green Zone government could face a serious crisis. Shiite political parties are either actively opposed to the treaty or withholding their support.

UPDATE: It’s not hard to figure out what’s probably going on. President Bush is not going to allow any agreement on an Iraq withdrawal timetable before Election Day. Such an agreement would undercut Senator John McCain’s proposal for a 100-year occupation. We have already learned that Bush shelved plans to set up a diplomatic outpost in Iran because McCain has ruled out talking to Iran in his presidential campaign speeches and debates.

UPDATE: In typical right-wing fashion, Republicans are accusing Senator Obama of playing politics with the Iraq talks. Obama met with Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington last June, and apparently informed him that the U.S. Senate would have to approve any treaty with Iraq– and that any agreement short of a treaty would not be binding on the next presidential administration. This is a simple statement of fact.


Previous One Utah posts:
Iraq Withdrawal: Reading the Fine Print (August 11)
Iraq Withdrawal: They Were Against It Before They Were For It (July 30)
Bye-Bye Green Zone (July 14)
The Iraq Endgame Takes Shape (June 18)
‘More abominable than the occupation’ (June 10)
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under permanent US occupation (June 5)
Iraq Index and an Update on the Permanent Occupation Treaty (May 31)