Report: Indefinite US Role in Iraq

Under a draft agreement between the United States and Iraq there would be no timetable for the U.S. to leave the Middle Eastern country, and American troops would be authorized to “conduct military operations [there] and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security,” the British newspaper The Guardian is reporting.

But at the same time the agreement, which the paper says is marked “secret” and “sensitive,” is also described as temporary and states that the U.S. “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq.” 

The Guardian said the draft agreement, dated March 7, is intended to succeed the current United Nation’s mandate under which the U.S. is currently in Iraq and which expires at the end of the year.

But the agreement is headed for conflict in Iraq and the United States, according to the paper, at least in part because it contains no limits on numbers of American forces, the weapons they may deploy, their legal status or what powers they would have over Iraqi citizens. These go beyond the long-term security agreements the U.S. has with other countries, critics say.

The Guardian reports that both Shiite and Sunni members of the Iraqi parliament are expected to oppose the currently still-secret agreement. The U.S. wants it finalized by the end of July, according to the paper.

"The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks,” the paper quoted one “well-placed” Iraqi Sunni political source as saying, referring to the recent clashes between Iraqi government forces and the Shiite militias. “The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."

There is also expected to be opposition in the U.S., where Democrats are determined that President Bush not tie the hands of his successor by locking the country’s armed forces into an arrangement with the Iraqi government.