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 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."

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Americans are evenly divided between the two presidential candidates' positions on the war in Iraq. Respondents favor Sen. John McCain by 47-45% to handle the war. Fifty percent of respondents favor Obama's plan to withdraw U.S combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, while 49 percent oppose any timetables for withdrawal, embracing the McCain position. Critically for the electoral chances of both candidates, however, 53 percent of independents favor McCain's approach of letting events on the ground in Iraq dictate the pace of troop withdrawals.

The poll underscores the fact that the Iraq War has ceased to be a driving issue in the presidential campaign. But that fact may contain a hidden benefit for Sen. McCain. The Obama campaign has sought to tie McCain to the policies of President Bush, especially with respect to the war in Iraq. But the poll shows that the effort has largely failed to reduce public confidence in McCain's ability to lead the war effort, or in his Iraq policy. Seventy-two percent of respondents said that McCain would make a good commander-in-chief, compared to just 48% for Obama. Furthermore, with both candidates likely to shore up their bases before November, the percentage of independents favoring McCain's Iraq policy bodes well for his ability to win the crucial voting block in the fall.

The poll does contain some positive news for Obama's strategy. Sixty-three percent said that the war in Iraq has not been worth the cost, agreeing with Obama; although 46% said that the U.S. is making significant progress there, up from 40% in April. And a majority of those polled, fifty-one percent, said that the U.S. must succeed in Afghanistan in order to be successful in the war on terror. That comports with Obama's position that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror. Still, on balance, the poll is probably more welcome news in the McCain camp than in Obama's. McCain's campaign has been trying to paint Obama as too inexperienced on matters of national security. And while the poll results show that Americans generally give Obama's plan the same marks as McCain's, they continue to see McCain as a more viable commander-in-chief.

President Bush signed a revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law last week at the White House. The bill reestablishes the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, which had lapsed when the Protect America Act of 2007 expired in February. The Bush Administration counts the passage of the bill as a victory both in its efforts to protect the country from terrorist attacks and in its design to provide the next Administration with all the tools necessary to keep the country safe into the future.

The bill's detractors, and critics of the surveillance it authorizes, see the whole issue differently. Civil liberties advocates complain that the law gives the government too much authority, and provides too little oversight, to listen in on the conversations of ordinary Americans. They say that the program is a violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as a violation of FISA itself. Administration critics see the program as a first step on a slippery slope toward a police state, where all communications are subject to prying government eyes and ears.

But the program is nothing of the kind. It is a necessary part of fighting the war on terrorism. Surveillance has always been conducted in war. Only the times and tools change. The difference in this war is that the enemy could be hiding among us, plotting and planning. Whereas in prior wars, the enemy was safely overseas. The passage of the new FISA, complete with the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is a triumph of reason over emotion, pragmatism over ideology, and bipartisanship over polarization.

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."

Over twelve hundred U.S. Army soldiers and Marines celebrated Independence Day by committing themselves to another four years of service to the country. Gen. David Petraeus was on hand at Camp Victory, U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, as the men and women took the oath, filling an atrium in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces to the bursting point. The troops sang "God Bless America" and heard a roll call of the states at the ceremony, and were treated to a traditional barbecue in honor of the Fourth afterwards.

Some of the troops told interviewers that the re-upped for the $15,000 bonus, but most expressed a dedication to duty and their comrades characteristic of the military. Many are on their second and third tours in Iraq, and it is a measure of their devotion that these soldiers would volunteer for more duty far from home and family.

The military has enjoyed very high re-enlistment rates throughout the war in Iraq. The large numbers of returning soldiers has helped to offset more sluggish recruitment numbers. As conditions in Iraq improve, and units are regularly rotated out of the country, the veteran troops will impart their war experience to relatively green units, helping to build an even more capable military.

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has ruled in favor of a challenge to the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, saying that the Executive branch has no authority to conduct warrantless surveillance except under the conditions set forth by Congress in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The lawsuit, brought by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Muslim charity, alleged that the National Security Agency violated the FISA Act when it secretly monitored the foundation's communications under the controversial program. The judge ruled that FISA is the "exclusive" means of conducting such surveillance and agreed with the foundation's complaint.

"Congress appears clearly to have intended to - and did - establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch's authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities."

The Bush Administration has consistently argued that the president's authority to order the surveillance stems from his inherent power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It says that enemy surveillance is a function of war fighting and not subject to congressional or court oversight. The Administration also argues that the terrorist surveillance program is legal since it monitors only communications in which at least one of the parties is outside the United States.

The judge's ruling in the case seems to run afoul of Constitutional law. Constitutional powers cannot be "limited" by statute, only by an amendment to the Constitution. Just as a presidential Executive Order declaring that Congress cannot pass a law raising taxes would be unconstitutional, it is similarly unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law limiting the president's authority to command the armed forces in war time. Supporters of the terrorist surveillance program argue that the war on terrorism trumps Congress's intent in the 1978 FISA Act, while the program's detractors say that FISA is the legitimate governing standard. Whatever the opinions of the opposing sides, this case seems destined to one day be decided by the Supreme Court.

A 700-page study of the Iraq war and its aftermath by the United States Army released yesterday concludes that the post-war occupation phase of the conflict suffered from under-staffing and from incorrect assumptions by commanders as to just what the Army's role would be.

"Few commanders foresaw that full spectrum operations in Iraq would entail the simultaneous employment of offense, defense, stability, and support operations by units at all echelons of command to defeat new, vicious, and effective enemies.

[The] post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war."

That means that the Army was operating in a "liberate and go home" mindset in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad, and expected Iraqis to take control of the country in very short order.

Critics of the Bush Administration's pre-war planning will seize on the report's conclusions as proof that the president led the nation to war without adequate preparations for the aftermath. That charge is necessarily informed by hindsight, however. Everyone agrees that the post-war occupation plan turned out to be insufficient to handle the conditions in the country, but that is not proof that there was no plan.