Gates, Rice defend US-Iraq security agreement

WASHINGTON — The security agreement between U.S. and Iraq provides both the time and authority needed for American troops to train Iraqi forces and pursue terrorists, senior Bush administration officials said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were explaining and defending the agreement to Congress, some members of which are deeply skeptical of the agreement that lays out U.S. troop withdrawal timelines and gives Iraq limited legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces and military contractors who commit crimes.

The 21-page document was signed on Monday in Baghdad by U.S. and Iraqi officials after months of painstaking negotiations, but it still must be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Tempers ran high when debate began in the Iraqi parliament this week, including a clash between supporters and opponents on Wednesday.

Although the Bush administration contends congressional approval is not required on the U.S. side, the White House dispatched Gates and Rice to Capitol Hill to assuage lawmakers' concerns as the clock ticks down on the existing United Nations mandate for the troops' presence in Iraq. The U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The agreement sets a June 30, 2009, deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities and towns and a Dec. 31, 2011, deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq provided that Iraqi forces have assumed full security responsibility in the country, according to a copy obtained by the AP.

Officials dismissed suggestions that the U.S. has retreated on its initial vehement opposition to withdrawal deadlines, insisting that any troop drawdown be based on security conditions. Instead, they said that change is due to improved security and better Iraqi forces.

"Their competence, their confidence has increased tremendously. And so, that's why we're able to work on a date," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. She added that the document was a negotiation and, "we asked for some things that we didn't get; they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Geoff Morrell echoed those comments.

"The security situation has improved so dramatically, and the Iraqi security forces have improved so dramatically that we are confident that, if things continue to trend as they have been, our services will not be needed in Iraq, come 2012," Morrell told reporters.

He said officials believe the agreement both respects Iraqi sovereignty and provides U.S. forces with the authority to continue to go after insurgents, while still giving the Iraqis the training and equipment they need to take over security of their own country.

The agreement also gives Iraq an element of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and military contractors who commit "grave premeditated felonies" while they are off-base and off-duty. A list of those crimes is to be compiled by a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee. The United States, however, would retain custody of such soldiers.

Both Rice and Gates have said they would not be pushing the agreement if they did not fully support it, but members of Congress, including Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., are troubled by some provisions and said they have had little time to review the agreement.

"Here we are with the clock ticking, running out. There's been no input from Congress and the American people have been kept in the dark," said Delahunt, who was chairing a hearing on the issue Wednesday ahead of the testimony from Rice and Gates. "I still have serious reservations about this agreement."

Delahunt and others, notably Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed concern about the "vague" nature of the agreement.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

___