Long-Term US Presence.

President Bush and PM Nouri al-Maliki on Nov. 26 signed a declaration paving the way for a long-term US presence in Iraq from 2009, in addition to restoring full Iraqi sovereignty. US and Iraqi officials said both states would work towards extending the UN Security Council (UNSC) mandate allowing US and coalition troops to operate in Iraq for one more year. For its part, the Pentagon on Nov. 27 said it was beginning to work out the details of the post-2008 phase in the US presence in permanent military bases in Iraq.

Washington and Baghdad have agreed to work towards replacing the mandate with a US-Iraqi security agreement. The FT on Nov. 27 quoted Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zubari as saying 2008 would be the last in which US and allied troops in Iraq were covered by the UN mandate which has been in effect since 2003. He said the status of forces in Iraq later would be covered by a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement.

Zubari said the US and Iraq were preparing to submit a request to the UNSC to extend the mandate for the US-led coalition. He said the resolution would refer to the willingness of Baghdad to engage in bilateral negotiations with the US to reach a long-term security arrangement. He added that the bilateral accord would allow the UN to lift sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, including curbs on military purchases, "dual-use" items which could be for WMD and foreign assets.

The move comes as the US starts to wind down the surge of 30,000 soldiers amid signs that violence has dropped in Iraq since June. Gen Douglas Lute, White House adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, said the aim of the US-Iraqi negotiations was to create a "reliable, enduring partnership" between Washington and Baghdad. He said the final agreement would authorise a "continued presence for US and other coalition troops" outside the UNSC mandate. He said it was important that rival Iraqi sects did not have to "hedge their bets" because of uncertainty over US commitment to Iraq.

Peter Rodman, a former Pentagon official now at the Brookings Institution, said the accord would pave the way for Iraq to get full sovereignty "untrammelled" by the UN. The security agreement is to include provisions on training and supplies for Iraqi forces.

The White House says this is the first in a three-step process to normalise US-Iraqi ties "consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community". Iraqi officials presented the plan to parliament on Nov. 26. Independent MP Mahmoud Osman, a Kurd, said it had been opposed by some deputies, mostly from the radical Shi'ite Sadrist bloc, who said such a deal should not be made while the country was still under occupation.

The White House has been elated by the drop in violence since the increase in US forces, now totalling 162,000 troops. Comments by Bush and his aides, though, reflect a frustration at the lack of progress, a continuation of a pattern in which intense US efforts to promote broader reconciliation have proved largely fruitless. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure "reconciliation" among Iraq's deeply divided ethnic and sectarian groups, some now talk of "accommodation".

Officials in Washington and in Baghdad share the view that military gains alone are not enough to overcome the deep distrust among Iraqi factions caused by nearly five decades of dictatorship and war. And in both capitals there are leaders who continue to hold out hope for broad political gains, eventually.

The New York Times quoted a senior member of Iraq's government as saying: "We need a grand bargain among all the groups". But with that not yet in sight, Bush officials say they hope approval of a few initial steps might lead to more substantive agreements in 2008, including provincial elections, which the White House wants to see held before Bush leaves office in early 2009.

The US troop increase in February was to help improve Iraq's political stability measured by "benchmarks", including a law on sharing oil income. But those benchmarks remain largely unfulfilled; the oil law is yet to be passed by parliament.

Bush's critics in Congress have cited the lack of progress towards those benchmarks as evidence the White House is on the wrong track in Iraq and ought to begin a rapid pullout of US forces. Despite the reduction in violence, with attacks now down to levels last seen in early 2006, some Democrats in Congress have continued to press for a timeline for a withdrawal. Most recently, the House tried to tie a deadline to a $50 bn war spending bill, although that proposal died in the Senate.

The most important thing the Americans can do is keep Iraqi blocs talking to one another and to help them understand legislation now being debated. Iraqi PMs say only with concrete information could rumours be dispelled that legislation might help or hurt certain groups. Qassem Da'oud, an independent Shi'ite MP who served as a security minister in the Iyad Allawi government before Iraq regained its sovereignty, says: "So far, the activities of the American Embassy are a bit limited in this regard".

Earlier in November, the White House sent several senior aides to Baghdad to work with the Iraqis on specific legislative areas. They have been meeting with a variety of officials and party leaders across Iraq.

US officials in Baghdad appear to understand the limitations they face and are focusing on pragmatic goals like helping the government spend the money in its budget. That, US and Iraqi officials say, could do more than anything else to ease tensions and build support for the fledging national government.