Iraqi Stance Led to Bush Shift on Pullout

U.S. Officials Cite Assertiveness by Prime Minister

For two years, President Bush successfully resisted efforts by Democrats in Congress to set a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq. But in recent months, pressure from Iraqi politicians appears to have proved too much for the commander in chief.

As part of an accord governing the future American military presence in Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, officials said this week. The Iraqis wanted 2010 to be the "aspirational" date for a U.S. withdrawal but, ultimately, settled on the following year.

The move, foreshadowed by the White House for weeks, represents a significant shift for an administration that once cast proposals for a withdrawal date as tantamount to setting a date for surrender. But the Bush administration found itself unable to conclude negotiations with the Iraqis unless it was willing to establish such a date, according to U.S. officials and other experts on Iraq.

A key factor, they said, was the increasing assertiveness of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has been buoyed by the recent effectiveness of Iraqi security forces and has grown more confident in their ability to keep violence low. Maliki, who faces a reelection bid next year, has also been under pressure at home to show distance from Washington and to demonstrate that the U.S. military presence is coming to an end.

"This isn't what the administration was expecting when they went into the process of negotiating these agreements," said Steven Simon, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Any successful politician in Iraq is going to have to run as a nationalist. The one surefire path to success is to say, 'Yankee, go home.' "

The White House continued a posture of no comment yesterday, on the grounds that the two agreements at issue -- one accord defining the rules under which U.S. troops will be able to operate, the other a longer-term "strategic framework agreement" -- have yet to be completed. Bush and Maliki had a telephone conversation yesterday to discuss the status of the agreements, a spokesman said, and the two sides are in "the process of working out details right now."

For weeks, administration officials have said that they can contemplate setting a "time horizon" only because conditions have improved dramatically in Iraq as a result of the buildup of additional U.S. forces in Iraq last year. They also emphasize that the target date of 2011 is "conditions based," meaning it can be rescinded if a future president and Iraqi leader agree that U.S. troops are needed to maintain stability.

The text of the agreement was not provided.

In an interview this month with The Washington Post, Bush drew a strong distinction between the kind of "aspirational goals" he was willing to consider and what he described as more inflexible deadlines proposed by congressional Democrats. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed withdrawing the 15 remaining U.S. combat brigades from Iraq at a rate of one a month.

"The timetables that were being argued in the Congress were being argued based upon politics, not based upon conditions on the ground," Bush said, adding, "I was against these artificial . . . timetables that said 'We'd be out now.' " The president said he never heard any Democrats making the argument that " 'Well, maybe we ought to adjust based upon the conditions.' That's not what they were saying."

But Obama and other Democrats said yesterday that White House efforts to make a distinction were meaningless.

"I am glad that the Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for the removal of our combat troops from Iraq," Obama said in a statement. "Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences and taking responsibility for its future, and a timetable is the best way to press the Iraqis to do just that."

Colin H. Kahl, a Georgetown University professor who has been following the negotiations while advising the Obama campaign on Iraq, said that with Iraqi security forces "beginning to find their feet," Maliki has been bargaining harder with the Americans.

"The Iraqis had more leverage over us," Kahl said. "The fact of the matter is the Iraqis demanded some timeline for our departure, and the Bush administration acceded to their demands."

While Kahl portrayed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, as the odd man out on Iraq policy now, McCain said in a statement that he was "pleased" by the negotiations, and added, "We should not forget that this is possible only because of the surge -- a strategy many predicted would fail and that some cannot, even today, recognize as a stunning success."

One administration official close to the negotiations likened the situation in Iraq to "Chicago politics" but said that was a good thing. "If you believe, as most Iraqis do, that there's been a heck of a lot of progress over here, what is the next thing they're going to say?" he asked. " 'When are these guys finally leaving so we can get on with our lives?' That's the pressure Iraqi politicians are sensing from their constituencies. As a result, they're starting to now say to us, 'Hey, when are you leaving?' "

Staff writers Karen DeYoung and Michael D. Shear, traveling with McCain, contributed to this report.