another ticking clock in the whole iraqi misadventure is the iraqi parliament. a clear majority of the parliament are calling for a withdrawal timetable. which shouldn't be at all surprising as their constituents are overwhelmingly against the presence of foreign troops in iraq.
so what happens if the iraqi parliament refuses to extend permission for foreign forces to operate in iraq? the current UN mandate expires on december 31, 2007. but that security council resolution specified that the mandate would end earlier "if requested by the government of iraq." if the iraqi parliament says no to foreign forces, or imposes a withdrawal timetable, the u.s. would have to choose between: (1) complying with the wishes of the iraqis and leave, (2) sponsoring a coup in iraq to get a government that would permit troops to stay, or (3) staying in iraq in defiance of the laws of the government the u.s. has claimed so far to be the legitimate government in iraq.
options #2 and 3 would reveal u.s. policy in iraq to be nothing more than a crass colonial adventure. but option #1 is something that president bush has said will not happen.
i'm really not sure which option bush would choose. which is probably why he'll try to avoid the problem before it comes to a head--pressure iraqi MPs behind closed doors to quietly kill any withdrawal resolution. but that may not work. and if it doesn't... who knows.
