Brown announced a couple of weeks ago that withdrawal of military could start properly in 2009, though makes it clear he is not setting a timetable. No doubt this is more because Labour have made such a fuss about setting a timetable that they can't be seen to say they've now got one. But is this all just based on what his military chief's on the ground say, or is it perhaps lead by a similar announcement at the same time by Obama that 2010 would be the year for withdrawal of US troops if he gets the top job?

I don't wish to be cynical, the situation could genuinely be reaching the point at which non-Iraqi forces are becoming not only more of a protagonist in the situation of violence in the country, but less of a necessity for dealing with any of it. Certainly it would make sense that both the US and UK forces feel the same about how complete their job is right now. But given the political pandering that's been going around, and backroom deals to stop something seemingly as innocuous as a walk down the street with obama and Cameron (any allegations of it being hand in hand are strictly rumour), is it unlikely that Brown could be doing the same that Blair was accused of doing, and just following the powerful American leaders in their actions?

To me I never supported a timetable, I thought that those calling for one were making more of a political statement than one of caring about innocent lives in Iraq, simply abandoning a country after tearing a great big hole in it is possibly the most reckless action we could take yet was advocated by far too many "liberals". In that sense I hope Brown is just following military advice, and that the reality is that the situation is getting that good, or at least legitimately feasible, to start removing ourselves from that equation.

However with Obamamania on the rampage and just about every politician wishing to get a bit of the Obama pie, I fear that we can't be complacent in believing that he isn't at all a factor in how those politicians make their decisions.