Hand in hand with Iraqi police, American soldiers are pictured dancing and horsing around in Baghdad. However absurd, it kept me reading on in A1 of today’s Times.

The article, to the right of its catchy picture, began with a typical summary lead. The lead jumps right in to the information- summarizing the main points of the proposed security agreement, when it happened (Sunday) and what it means for the United States (A final departure date for U.S. troops).

The article has perhaps the best organization I have seen all week, set up in a linear style. The article quickly and simplistically expands on the reader’s central questions. Who? What? When? Where? And of course, the significance to the reader. Why should I care about this?

To answer these questions, the story linked the main points: Iraqi’s cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a security pact for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq by 2011.

The agreement still needs to be backed by Iraq’s Parliament, and reflects a turnaround in Bush’s disapproval of timetables.

I learned a great deal from the article, as it was packed with information. For example, I did not know the pact took over a year to negotiate and I was surprised it passed,; timetables were so publicly shot down by the Bush administration in recent months even.

But I was left with a few unanswered questions: The article speaks with assurance about the pact and Shiite support, but what of the Sunni opposition?