i don't understand why every article about whether obama will stick with the withdrawal timetable for iraq ignores the fact that it's not only his call. obama's predecessor entered into an agreement (pdf) that included a strict timetable for withdrawal. under the agreement the u.s. can extend the timetable's deadlines (like the august 2010 deadline for withdrawal of combat troops mentioned in the NYT article) only with the consent of the iraqi government.
and yet the article and all of the people quoted therein act as if this is the unilateral decision of the american president. there is no mention of the SOFA and the reporters didn't even bother to ask a single iraqi what he or she thought about the issue.
of course obama could unilaterally decide to break the agreement, but that would cause all kinds of additional problems. for example, it would completely undermine any pretense that the current iraqi government is a sovereign entity, or that the u.s. is actually there to support the new democratic government of iraq. none of those potential pitfalls that would come with breaking the agreement are mentioned in the article either. the underlying assumption is that the american president can do whatever he wants and the rest of the world would just go along with it.
