You are right, from the strict constitutional stance, but congress has, in the past several decades, avoided their responsibility in this type of decision. For example, the last war that congress actually declared was World War II. Although the Constitution of the United States gives only Congress the right to declare war, the United States has been involved in several military conflicts without a declaration of war. Instead, the various presidents have found ways to enter conflicts without such a declaration. I'm not saying that these conflicts were wholly bad (or good) decisions, but Congress has largely abdicated this responsibility.

Since there haven't been any declared wars in the past 60 years, there hasn't been the need for Congress to ratify any treaties either (no peace treaties are needed to end wars if there are no declared wars). Instead, the Executive branch of government (largely the State Department and the President) has made agreements with the governments of other leaders and many of these are handshake deals or negotiated by State without ratification by Congress.

I don't see congress changing this approach with the new President. They are supportive of him (for now) but they don't want to get their hands "dirty" because they would rather say that they had nothing to do with a bad decision when the next election comes around, than have to explain why they decided a certain way. Because of this, they will likely continue to abdicate their responsibilities in regards to Iraq leaving the President to do whatever he will.

All of that means that President-Elect Obama, when he becomes President, will likely have the freedom to make whatever agreements he wishes with the Iraqi government. We may very well find out whether or not he will arrange for a quick troop withdrawal after asking them to delay such an agreement a few months ago.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan