Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that the two countries have reached a preliminary agreement on a time line for U.S. combat troop withdrawal from Iraq. According to the agreement, all U.S. combat forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, a little less than three and a half years from now. The role of U.S. forces inside Iraq will change as well. The agreement calls for U.S. troops to be stationed outside of Iraqi cities by June of next year, in a backup role for Iraqi forces, who will have complete control of security in all of the country by then. The agreement only deals with combat forces, not basing rights. The U.S. and Iraq are still in negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement, which will lay out the conditions for a continuing U.S. troop presence in Iraq, similar to those in Germany and South Korea.

Rice commented on the deal in a surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday, saying that setting dates in the agreement made sense. She also praised the success of the troop surge as a reason for the two countries' ability to include time goals in the deal.

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement.

I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger."

That point may be disputed by critics of the Administration's Iraq policy. The Bush Administration has never favored a strict time line for withdrawal, and some may point to this agreement as evidence that the Administration's insistence on an open ended American commitment to Iraq has failed. But there can be little doubt that had the Administration agreed to a time line in early 2007, as the Democrats in control of Congress were insisting on, the agreement announced today would not have been possible.

The famed CIA leak case, in which Valerie Plame's identity was allegedly revealed by top Bush Administration officials to punish her anti-war husband, Joseph Wilson, came to an end yesterday as a federal judge refused to reinstate the personal lawsuit filed by the Wilsons against Vice-President Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and other Administration officials. Judge John D. Bates ruled that Administration efforts to rebut criticism of their Iraq War policy from Wilson were within the scope of their duties as public officials.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Wilson and Plame had alleged that the Bush Administration conspired to reveal Plame's name to the press and that the revelation violated the couple's privacy rights. The judge ruled, however, that Congress exempted the president and vice-president from the federal law protecting individuals' privacy rights.

The Wilsons and their supporters have turned their grievance against the government into an intensely partisan affair. They continue to accuse Vice-President Cheney of having some direct responsibility for the revelation of Plame's identity, when in fact, it has been known since the very beginnings of the Special Prosecutor's investigation into the leak that it was State Department deputy Richard Armitage who first revealed Plame's identity to reporters. Armitage was never prosecuted for his actions for the simple fact that Plame was not covered by the law making it a crime to reveal a CIA agent's name at the time her identity was exposed in the press. Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case, not for revealing Plame's name. His sentence was later commuted by President Bush. Wilson's lawyers plan to appeal the verdict, but they will likely get the same result in a higher court.

President Bush, in a rare 8 AM statement, announced that effective tomorrow, combat tours for all new units deployed to Iraq will be shortened to twelve months from the current 15 months. The president cited the continuing improvements in the security situation in Iraq as a reason for the change, noting that violence in July was at its lowest levels in more than four years.

This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq. Violence is down to its lowest level since the spring of 2004, and we're now in our third consecutive month with reduced violence levels holding steady. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker caution that the progress is still reversible, but they report that there now appears to be a "degree of durability" to the gains we have made. [...]

The progress in Iraq has allowed us to continue our policy of "return on success." We now have brought home all five of the combat brigades and the three Marine units that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge. The last of these surge brigades returned home this month. And later this year, General Petraeus will present me his recommendations on future troop levels -- including further reductions in our combat forces as conditions permit.

As part of the "return on success" policy, we are also reducing the length of combat tours in Iraq. Beginning tomorrow, troops deploying to Iraq will serve 12-month tours instead of 15-month tours. This will ease the burden on our forces -- and it will make life easier for our wonderful military families.

In another sign of success in Iraq, the leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq has reportedly fled to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Iraqi intelligence units say that the leader of the group, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, crossed into Iran bound for Afghanistan in early June. The news comes as Iraqi Army and U.S. combat troops launched an offensive against the group's last remaining area of operation in Iraq in Diyala province this week.

As his week-long foreign trip concludes, Sen. Barack Obama appears to be coming around to the Bush Administration's, and Sen. John McCain's position on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Obama, who has been promising to end the war as his first act in office if elected, said for the first time in an interview with Newsweek that the pace of withdrawals should be dictated by conditions on the ground.

NEWSWEEK: In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?

OBAMA: Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.

NEWSWEEK: You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

OBAMA: I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

This represents a dramatic shift for Sen. Obama on Iraq. He had been pledging to complete troop withdrawals within 16 months of his inauguration. This new position acknowledges the necessity of a continued U.S. presence beyond that and seems to take into account the wishes of commanders such as Gen. David Petraeus, who Obama met with on his recent visit to the country.

The McCain campaign issued a press release in reaction to the interview, sarcastically praising Obama for moving toward McCain in his Iraq position.

There are three competing translations of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's now infamous remarks to the German magazine Der Spiegel about the potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. David Knowles provides the New York Times' version.

"Obama's remarks that-if he takes office-in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

That's hardly an unqualified endorsement, as was reported by the magazine and breathlessly trumpeted by the American left and mainstream press. Maliki's words seem to be the very carefully chosen words of a man hedging his bet. In other words, on the eve of a visit to his country by the potential next president of the nation that has sacrificed over 4,000 soldiers for its freedom and currently has 150,000 soldiers guarding that freedom, Maliki decided to pay a Sen. Obama's withdrawal plan a compliment. That's good politics in any part of the world.

But a truer picture of Maliki's position on the presence of U.S. troops can be found in his actions. The Bush Administration, and Senator McCain, have long said that U.S. troops would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask them to. Maliki, the leader of a Shiite political party officially opposed to the U.S presence, has been calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq since before he became prime minister. Still, Iraq has not yet asked the United States to leave.

The German magazine Der Spiegel sent the mainstream media and the American left into a tizzy this weekend when it reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed Sen. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At first glance, the story seemed like a shot to the ribs of the McCain campaign, which has worked hard to gain the public's trust on the issue of the war in Iraq and national security in general. The trouble for the media, and Obama supporters, is that there was no Maliki endorsement.

A spokesman in the Prime Minister's office disputed the magazine's characterization of Maliki's remarks, calling them, "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." Ali al-Dabbagh said that rather than an arbitrary timeline, such as the 16 months that Sen. Obama supports, conditions on the ground would dictate the pace of American troop withdrawals. He also said that the continuance of security improvements in Iraq would be a necessary precondition of any troop drawdown.

Maliki's comments come in advance of Obama's visit to Iraq, and in that context, are really not surprising. Maliki has domestic political considerations of his own, and as a consequence, has long been calling for a diminishing U.S. presence in Iraq. That is the popular position in Iraq. He also knows that he may well have a President Obama to deal with in a few months. So paying a lip service compliment to Obama's plan was also a wise political move. But the reality is that Iraqi security forces, though vastly improved thanks to the troop surge, are not yet ready to handle the day-to-day security responsibilities in the country. Until they are, the U.S. must stay as their back-up and support. This is the reason that Maliki's office was so swift to correct the record.

The Bush Administration and the Iraqi government announced an agreement today that sets up a dialog between the two nations on a "general time horizon" for the U.S troop presence in Iraq. The Administration chose its wording carefully, and says that the language of the agreement does not commit the United States to an arbitrary timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stressed the any withdrawals under the agreement would be based upon an assessment of conditions on the ground, and not on political considerations.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground. All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that."

Another White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, called the goals of the agreement "aspirational," and placed the focus of the deal not on U.S. troop withdrawals, but on Iraqi troop performance. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be," he said.

The agreement comes in the context of continuing negotiations over a final status of forces agreement between Iraq and the United States. Such an agreement would govern the conditions under which the U.S. could maintain bases and a troop presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate authorizing the current U.S. presence expires at the end of the year. Iraq, responding to domestic political considerations, has been driving a hard bargain in the talks, seeking a one year agreement and holding fast to its demands, such as to have American contractors who may commit crimes during their stay subjected to Iraqi, not U.S. civilian, law.

Sen. John McCain laid out his plan for the war in Afghanistan at a town hall event in Albuquerque, New Mexico, today, modeling it on the successful troop surge strategy in Iraq. McCain called for three combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan and for Afghan Army forces to be doubled to 160,000. McCain also took a shot at his rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who made a speech of his own on the wars today, while calling the improving security situation in Iraq a blueprint for success in Afghanistan.

"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.

I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

McCain added an assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, calling it, "not acceptable." He said that the next president would face tough decisions about the war effort there. Then, in remarks reminiscent of the Republican primary, McCain vowed to find Osama bin Laden. "I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice," he said. It was during the first Republican primary debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, when McCain promised to, "follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell."

Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate today to be the new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). In his new position, Petraeus will give up day-to-day control of events in Iraq and take charge of all U.S. military activities in the Middle East and central Asia. President Bush nominated Petraeus for the post back in April on the recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But Gates' promotion of Petraeus for the job was probably a mere formality, given the fact that Petraeus has been the general in charge of the troop surge strategy that has been so remarkably successful at reducing the level of violence in Iraq and helping to boost the confidence and competency of the Iraqi government.

The Senate vote was 95-2. Only Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted against Petraeus's confirmation. Byrd said that his vote was based on his belief that Petraeus has been successful in Iraq, and should remain there. "[I]t does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved," he said. The reason for Harkin's no vote are unclear, but he also cast the lone vote in opposition to the promotion of Petraeus's deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, to be the new Iraq Commander. Odierno will receive a fourth star as a result of his confirmation and take over responsibility for operations in Iraq.

Petraeus's tenure as the top commander in Iraq has been nothing short of remarkable. He successfully developed and implemented the troop surge strategy, changing U.S. tactics in fighting the stubborn insurgency in Iraq and rescuing the war effort there. He has also seen first hand the daily meddling of Iran in Iraq, and will no doubt take that knowledge to his new post, where he will be charged with countering the growing threat from Iran in the region. Petraeus has won praise from Republicans and Democrats alike for his candor, his calm and confident leadership, and his tactical brilliance. He seems destined for much greater things and a higher profile role in the Pentagon in the years ahead. He is a once-in-a-generation military leader and is rapidly approaching the exalted status of a MacArthur, Bradley, Pershing, and Eisenhower.

Lost in this week's news from Iraq are some pretty significant comments from a former U.S. general and consultant to Gen. David Petraeus. Retired general Jack Keane, who helped design the troop surge, said that gains made by U.S. and Iraqi forces in securing the country are "not reversible," and that they will lead to significant troop withdrawals in 2009.

"I believe the momentum we have is not reversible. [There will be] significant reductions in 2009 whoever becomes president."

Keane was speaking as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that Iraqi forces had "defeated" al Qaeda in Iraq in the final and decisive battle for the northern city of Mosul, al Qaeda's last stronghold in the country. "They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it," al-Maliki said. "But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them."

Rounding out the week's good news in Iraq are the comments of Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who has been in charge of training Iraqi Army units since the beginning of the troop surge. He told a congressional committee that the Iraqi Army could be come proficient in the middle of next year. "It could be as early as April. It could be as late as August," he said when asked to put a date on when the Iraqis could be considered fully capable. Dubik told Congress that Iraqi security forces, currently in the lead in controlling 9 of the 18 provinces in the country, could assume control in all of them by the middle of next year. Dubik did caution, however, that there is still much work to do in preparing the Iraqi Army to operate fully independently. "Declaring full success too early is a risk," he said. "There has been huge progress. There has been significant improvement in every possible way you can measure it. But full success is not yet at hand."