Iraqi Prime Minister Sets Forth Issue Of U.S. Withdrawl Timetable

Okay, this whole subject is chock full of a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, but the significance here is that this is the FIRST time that Prime Minister Maliki has publicly expressed a need for a timetable of withdrawl from the United States. Like I said, there are about twenty different angles this is being looked at with both sides trying to settle on an agreement - let's look at some of the article at Breitbart:

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable—an idea opposed by President Bush.
He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

One of the reasons for Maliki to make this public now may be in his attempt to get an agreement of withdrawl with the U.S. without having to bring it to his parliament for ratification. Here's where that is discussed:

With the latest moves, Iraq's government appeared to be trying to blunt opposition in parliament to any deal.
Al-Maliki also could be trying to avoid parliament altogether. He has promised in the past to submit a formal agreement with the U.S. to the legislative body.
But his spokesman indicated Monday that the government might feel no need to get approval from parliament for a shorter-term interim deal.
"It is up to the Cabinet whether to approve it or sign on it, without going back to the parliament," said spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

It's all a bit too complicated for my liking but this announcement by Maliki does raise some interesting points:

1. Is Maliki feeling a little too over confident? And would a publicized time table prepare Iraq's enemies for a resurgence? (President Bush has opposed a timetable)
2. What does this do to Obama's key political strategy of getting votes because he will withdraw troops? If it looks like they are coming home fairly soon anyway, isn't B. Hussein, shit outta luck?
3. At the same time, what about McCain? Conversely, McCain has used Obama's weak position on Iraq to gain ground - could this pull the rug out from under that?

I'm sure any kind of withdrawl agreement is far off but it's both encouraging to see the talk and frightening as hell, at the same time.

Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.
The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.
"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.
Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.
U.S. officials have said little publicly about the negotiations. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not comment directly on the specifics when asked about it on a trip to Baghdad.
"We'd all like to see U.S. troops get out of here at some point in time," Mullen said. "However, from a military perspective I need the laws and the regulations and the agreements from the government of Iraq in order to continue operations beyond the 31st of December of this year."
With the latest moves, Iraq's government appeared to be trying to blunt opposition in parliament to any deal.
Al-Maliki also could be trying to avoid parliament altogether. He has promised in the past to submit a formal agreement with the U.S. to the legislative body.
But his spokesman indicated Monday that the government might feel no need to get approval from parliament for a shorter-term interim deal.
"It is up to the Cabinet whether to approve it or sign on it, without going back to the parliament," said spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.
Legal experts said the form of the deal was less significant than its substance.
"You could theoretically include everything in a memorandum of understanding that you could in a formal status of forces agreement," said Michael Matheson, an expert on international law at George Washington University Law School.