There's a myriad of articles that abound, arguing one way or another on Maliki's intentions for establishing a timetable or time line for withdrawal of Coalition Forces. The Gulfnews reports that the timetable was first insisted upon by Al Sistani...

Al Sistani's role divides parties

...Al Sistani insisted on including a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces.

This intervention by Al Sistani has brought to the fore the differences between the major political parties in the Iraqi government.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim has accepted Al Sistani's demand for a definite timetable for the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq. But the position of the mainly Sunni Iraqi Accord Front and the Kurdish bloc was that the subject of withdrawals was not to be raised in the current negotiations, Kurdish political sources told Gulf News.

Mahmoud Othman, leader of the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan, told Gulf News: "The Political Council for National Security, which includes the major political blocs in the country, had agreed not to press for a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces, but it seems the call by Al Sistani is the crucial one to determine the progress of the negotiations with the Americans."

In some Shiite neighbourhoods in Baghdad people have written slogans on walls reading: "Sistani is the national independence hero".

Al Sistani's intervention has caused resentment among some political parties and the Kurds. They feel vital political decisions need to be made by political parties and not clergy.

Al Sistani's position was totally opposed to that of the Kurds who support the long-term presence of the American military.

I find it fascinating that the Sunni and Kurdish blocs aren't too keen on our withdrawal. I wonder why...?

As Juan Cole points out in the Arabic press...

The intention is now to sign a memorandum of understanding instead of a SOFA, according to Shaikh Jalal al-Din Saghir, an MP, a member of the Policy Council for National Security and a leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the main pillar of PM Nuri al-Maliki's government. He said that the Iraqi government sent a secret draft to Washington a few months ago that contained a request for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Iraqi politicians have told al-Hayat that the request for a timetable came as a result of pressure from Iraqi Shiite clerical leaders who insisted on an affirmation of the principle of national sovereignty in any agreement signed with Washington.

Saghir said that the recent successes of al-Maliki's military campaigns in Basra, Sadr City, Mosul and Maysan, made it more plausible that Iraqi troops could handle the security problems by themselves. He said that Iraqi negotiators at the table with the Americans had pointed out that a withdrawal of foreign troops was realistic under the new circumstances.

Saghir said that bringing up a timetable for withdrawal was not a negotiating tactic on al-Maliki's part.

It may not have been a negotiating tactic, Saghir, but, it's definitely political posturing... As Juan cites the AFP...

AFP points out that the demand for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops is also a campaign pledge for al-Maliki and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in the upcoming provincial elections. In many provinces, the US troop presence is unpopular.

Salah al-Ubaidi of the Sadr Movement told al-Hayat that the Iraqi government is responding to pressure from the Shiite clerical authorities and from the people. He said he doubted that al-Maliki would actually implement his promise to secure a withdrawal timetable.

Yeppers, purely political... I find it a tad ironic that all of Maliki's recent military successes are the fundamental reason the Kurds and the Sunnis are so reluctant to see us go! Those 'security' actions have clearly demonstrated Maliki's intent to divide and conquer...!

Badger has been following it closely too... And, Ah-Ha...

Regrettably, it appears the whole excitement about a demand for a "fixed-date schedule for troop-withdrawal" has been the product of weasel-words intended to create a strong image for the Maliki administration, the actual position being that the troops should withdraw when conditions on the ground, and/or the capabilities of the Iraqi forces, permit it.[...]

(ISCI's Saghir) "American withdrawal should be based on the continuing improvement in Iraqi-forces capabilities, he said, adding: "Consequently, the Iraqi demand is for a withdrawal schedule that is not established on a fixed basis...We have told Washington that an agreement has to include a time-schedule for the withdrawal of the American troops, or at least a defined mechanism for arranging the withdrawal and its date, to be linked to the development of the Iraqi security capabilities".

Following the outline of Saghir's remarks the journalist quotes the Sadrist leader Salah Al-Obeidi, as follows:

[Obeidi] accused the government of trying to escape from the [popular Iraqi] pressure being put on it with respect to signing this agreement with Washington. He said: "There is growing popular pressure rejecting the agreement, in addition to the determination of the marja'iya and other religious figures, Sunni and Shiite, to reject it." He added: "The government is trying to lighten this pressure by means of these declarations" [about fixed-date withdrawal and so on], and he stressed: "There are very major doubts about the ability of the government to follow through on these declarations".

Badger goes on to point out the 'timetable' proposed...

Next, the AlHayat reporter quotes Daawa party leader Ali Al-Adeeb, with an explanation of the Iraqi position that goes like this: The withdrawal schedule should be

...linked to the turnover of security portfolio for all of the provinces of Iraq, and he added: "the operation will begin with the withdrawal of the American forces from Iraqi cities following the turnover of the security portfolio for all 18 of the Iraqi provinces, and following that there will be an assessment of the security situation every six months, to last between three and five years, and finally the definition of the final date for the American withdrawal."

Hmmm... The clock starts after All 18 provinces are turned over... Then, a security sitrep every six months thereafter, for 3-5 years...! Wow, I'm impressed with their determination to get us out...! Now, will the Iraqi Electorate buy all the posturing...? Time shall tell...