The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said those provisions will top the list of U.S. demands in talks with Iraqi officials for an accord that will extend beyond the presidency of George W. Bush.
U.S. officials will argue that these demands -- reported by the New York Times yesterday on its Web site -- flow logically from the fact that Iraq is still a combat zone, the defense official said. If U.S. forces operating there didn't have the legal authority to engage in combat and detain prisoners when necessary, there would be little point in their being in Iraq, the official said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday he expected that the agreement wouldn't authorize permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or attempt to set force levels for American troops.
``The way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq,'' Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
Gates also said the process of negotiating the agreement was in a preliminary phase and that U.S. officials had only just begun to discuss it among themselves.
UN Resolution
The so-called framework agreement would replace the current legal authorization for U.S. forces in Iraq, a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires at the end of this year.
U.S. and Iraqi leaders jointly declared on Nov. 26 their intention to conclude a permanent agreement and set forth broad principles for its provisions. Among those is a U.S. commitment to protect Iraq from external and internal threats to its security.
Some Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates, including Senator Hillary Clinton, have objected that such an agreement may burden the next U.S. leader with unwanted commitments. They have demanded that any agreement be submitted to Congress for approval.
``Where have we ever entered an agreement to defend a foreign country from external and internal attack that was not a treaty'' requiring congressional approval, said Representative William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, at a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing yesterday on the issue.
`Civil War' Concern
``This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq,'' Delahunt said. ``If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.''
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, said yesterday that an agreement establishing a long-term security arrangement with Iraq would need Senate approval.
On the other hand, the Delaware Democrat said, an accord that merely governs the conduct of U.S. troops and protects them from Iraqi prosecution -- known as a ``status-of-forces agreement'' -- probably wouldn't require Senate assent.
``They're totally different animals, and the honest-to-God truth is I don't have any idea, I suspect the administration may not, of what they're talking about,'' Biden told reporters.
Gates on Accord
Gates said that while there was ``a strong commitment inside the administration to consult very closely with the Congress'' on the agreement, ``without any idea of what the form of an agreement is going to be right now, I think it's premature to talk about congressional agreement or executive agreement.''
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the accord would be a status-of-forces agreement that would establish a legal basis for U.S. military operations in Iraq and wouldn't restrict the options of future administrations.
``If anybody is worried that this agreement somehow ties the hands of future policy makers, it's just simply not true,'' Casey said.
Casey said today that Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, would be the lead American negotiator.
At yesterday's House hearing, Ken Katzman, an analyst for the Congressional Research Service, said some U.S. demands for the agreement may meet Iraqi resistance.
In particular, he said some Iraqi observers have said the Iraqis may seek limits on U.S. ability to conduct air strikes and on the types of American aircraft that could be stationed in Iraq. U.S. officials would probably resist such demands, he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment