WASHINGTON -- With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.
This emerging U.S. negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.
At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Bush's policies and a long-term military presence.
The U.S. negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current U.N. mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that was described by a range of White House, Pentagon, State Department and military officials on ground rules of anonymity. It also includes less controversial demands that U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.
But the U.S. quest for protections for civilian contractors is expected to be particularly vexing, because in no other country are contractors working with the U.S. military granted protection from local laws. Some U.S. officials want contractors to have full immunity from Iraqi law, while others envision less sweeping protections.
These officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin in February, would also determine whether the U.S. authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.
Congressional Democrats have accused the White House of sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq.
But administration officials said the U.S. proposal specifically did not set future troop levels in Iraq or ask for permanent U.S. bases there. Nor, they said, did it offer a security guarantee defining Washington's specific responsibilities should Iraq come under attack.
