Nearly 11 months after George Bush and Nouri al-Maliki signed a "U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation" to extend the U.S. occupation of Iraq, both sides are finally near agreement.

And that's because Bush surrendered to Iraq on no less than five crucial issues:

1. immunity for U.S. troops
2. joint approval of U.S. military operations
3. a firm deadline for withdrawal
4. treatment of Iraqi prisoners
5. Iraqi control of the Green Zone

Immunity is the lead issue in the AP report because it is the most politically explosive here in the U.S.

Iraq: US agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

BAGHDAD (AP) — American troops could face trial before Iraqi courts for major crimes committed off base and when not on missions, under a draft security pact hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, Iraqi officials familiar with the accord said Wednesday.

Conservative Republicans adamantly oppose any foreign control over U.S. forces, including U.N. peacekeeping missions and even NATO operations. They will view this deal as nothing less than treason, and the White House is clearly terrified of their reaction:

officials said the administration was bracing for opposition from U.S. lawmakers, some of whom have already expressed concern about giving Iraq's fledgling and untested courts any jurisdiction over American troops.

The actual text isn't publicly available yet, but here's more hearsay on the immunity details:

During months of negotiations, which began early this year, the most difficult issue proved to be the question of who would try American soldiers and Pentagon contractors for offenses such as the killing of Iraqi civilians.

U.S. negotiators demanded exclusive jurisdiction over all soldiers and contractors, presumably to protect them from politically motivated charges. But Iraq insisted on a role to convince the public that Iraqis — and not Americans — are in charge of their country.

Under the compromise, the U.S. would have the primary right to try troops and Pentagon contractors for alleged offenses committed on American bases or during military operations, the officials said.

Such language would presumably shield troops from prosecution for accidentally killing civilians caught in the crossfire during authorized combat operations.

But Iraq would have first crack at trying U.S. military personnel and contractors for major, premeditated crimes allegedly committed outside American bases and when they are not on an authorized mission, the officials said.

Most of the estimated 147,000 U.S. troops rarely leave their bases except on authorized missions, so it is unclear whether the change would send a significant number of Americans before Iraqi judges.

However, examples of cases that could fall under Iraqi jurisdiction might include the 2006 rape-slaying of a 14-year-old girl and the killing of her family by American soldiers in Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.

Four U.S. troops pleaded guilty or were convicted in military courts. A former soldier, Steven Dale Green, is expected to stand trial in the United States in April. He could face the death penalty.

A military official in Washington said top Pentagon leaders were not entirely happy with the legal immunity compromise. Officials have said repeatedly, however, that the administration "can live with" the proposed deal.

Republicans will also see Bush giving Iraq joint control of U.S. military operations as treasonous:

Other provisions of the draft would give Iraqis a far greater role in U.S. military operations than at any time during the nearly six-year war... 

A joint U.S.-Iraqi committee will be established to coordinate American military operations, which must be carried out in accordance with Iraqi law and customs, the officials said.

Republicans will also oppose limits on military arrests:

American troops would no longer be allowed to detain suspects or search homes without Iraqi legal authorization except in cases of active combat, the officials said. Anyone detained by the Americans must be handed over to the Iraqis within 24 hours.

All detainees currently held by the U.S. must be released or transferred to Iraqi control, the officials said, although the timetable for the moves was subject to a joint review.

And Republicans will oppose the firm deadline for withdrawal that puts the final decision in the hands of Iraq, not the U.S. (Previous articles quoted U.S. negotiators saying the deadline was not firm, but merely "aspirational" and subject to "conditions on the ground," trying to leave room for John McCain to keep troops in Iraq forever. That room no longer exists.)

The draft also calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the end of June and withdraw from the country entirely by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the Baghdad government asks some of them to stay for training or security support, the officials said.

And the icing on the cake is giving Iraq

full control of the Green Zone, the 3 1/2-square mile area of central Baghdad that includes the U.S. Embassy and major Iraqi government offices.

So much for the "jewel in the crown" of America's short-lived Middle East empire. 

Taken together, this is a horrible deal that will enrage conservatives Republicans, but it's the best Bush could get before the U.N. mandate expires on December 31.

They said the draft may draw objections from U.S. lawmakers, whose support is not legally required but is considered essential to the eventual success of any deal, according to the officials.

However, the American negotiating teams have decided they cannot improve on the proposal and have sent it to higher-ups for a political decision as time runs out on both the Bush administration and the U.N. mandate.

And as horrible as it is, it might even get worse!

One senior Iraqi official said Baghdad may demand even more concessions before the draft is submitted to parliament for a final decision.

By Republican standards, this deal is almost as bad as the FDR-Chuchill-Stalin agreement at Yalta that put Eastern Europe under Soviet control for 40 years. It is the military equivalent of Bush's near-socialist takeover over Wall Street.

If House Democrats proposed impeachment now, they'd probably get unanimous Republican support!