The Iraqi Parliament has voted to approve the status of forces agreement (SOFA) that has been discussed for some time. This agreement will force US combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June of next year if a referendum passes to ratify it.

[Christian Science Monitor] The historic pact, passed by 149 of Iraq's 275 parliamentarians, calls for America's 140,000 troops to pull back to bases outside Iraq's cities by next June and leave the country entirely within three years. But it also mandates a public referendum on the deal next July. If Iraqis reject it, US forces could be asked to leave much sooner than 2011.

We will have to see how this 'referendum' is to be conducted, but the SOFA itself is intended to replace United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 (UNSC 1790), which authorized our military to occupy Iraq until next month. I'd like to review what this SOFA means below.

Iraq is no longer considered the 'central front' in the so-called 'war on terror' according to Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA. This was reported last week in the NY Times and in the Washington Post.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.

And just yesterday, it was reported that the Iraqi parliament would finally have a status of forces agreement (SOFA) to vote on. This new SOFA ...

...not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

With this news, it is time again to ask: Can we please end this occupation now?

Finally, an update from Riverbend at Baghdad Burning. She and her family have safely escaped Iraq to Syria. [Update: and just in time]. Her post is heart-wrenching, as always.

The last few hours in the house were a blur. It was time to go and I went from room to room saying goodbye to everything. I said goodbye to my desk- the one I’d used all through high school and college. I said goodbye to the curtains and the bed and the couch. I said goodbye to the armchair E. and I broke when we were younger. I said goodbye to the big table over which we’d gathered for meals and to do homework. I said goodbye to the ghosts of the framed pictures that once hung on the walls, because the pictures have long since been taken down and stored away- but I knew just what hung where. I said goodbye to the silly board games we inevitably fought over- the Arabic Monopoly with the missing cards and money that no one had the heart to throw away.

She is now one of millions that have fled their country because we decided based on false evidence to invade Iraq.

I have had the National Priorities Cost of War ticker on my site for some time. I have watched sadly as it counts up to nearly $450 billion now. It has increased 50% since I first added it.

Even more disparaging is the actual cost in the sense of money not spent on education or healthcare in this country. The comparative numbers on the Cost of War website are even more shocking.

The intelligence community today released a new NIE Key Judgments on Iraq Stability (PDF, NY Times). The findings have been variously characterized already; however, I cannot miss the opportunity to question a document produced by this administration about the single most important foreign policy issue facing the nation.

I want to examine the argument presented in the NIE as a complete argument and not try to cherry-pick quotes to support what I personally believe is the best course -- namely, to withdraw the majority of our troops from Iraq as soon as possible. The purpose of presenting the key findings as an argument is to suggest what it is this document purports to tell us. Whether the argument is useful, whether the report actually gives us any actionable information, I will leave for another debate.

It took me awhile to digest the all-night Senate debate over the Defense Authorization Bill. The form of the debate was that of a marathon recitation of talking points. Ultimately, "moderate" republican senators chose to block a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to begin redeploying, so we stay the course in Iraq.

The session did provide for some excellently ridiculous political logic from the war-mongers, however, so it wasn't a total loss. I would like to highlight the Top Ten Lame Excuses for Supporting the Iraqi Occupation.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) have introduced S.Amdt.2146 [begin here to find text] to H.R.1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, to de-authorize the occupation of Iraq. The amendment would add an expiration date to the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of October 11, 2007.

Along with S.Amdt.2087, the Levin-Reed amendment, the bill would force the Congress to appropriate only those funds authorized in the Defense Authorization Bill. Such an outcome is the best combination of ending the occupation and defunding the occupation. I urge everyone to call their Senators and encourage them to co-sponsor and vote for these amendments.

Yesterday, Senator Byrd made a speech on the floor of the Senate announcing his intent, with Senator Clinton, to introduce legislation to amend the Authorization For Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq. The intent would be to include a sunset provision that would expire the authorization on its 5th anniversary, 10/11/2007.

In February, I called for just such a course of action: Repeal the AUMF Against Iraq. Simply put, the AUMF is irrelevent to our current deployment, so it should either be eliminated or revised. Here are links to Senator Byrd's speech and Senator Clinton's statement from yesterday. I will quote choice bits from both below.

Following the closed-door briefing from General Petraeus, the Democratic leadership suggested that Petraeus identified sectarian violence as the primary threat to the stability of Iraq. The Republican leadership was then asked whether Petraeus had said sectarian violence or al-Qaeda presented the greatest threat in Iraq. Predictably, the Republican leadership lied.

You see, the lemming-like loyalty of the Republican party to their (not my) President requires that they connect our occupation (and subsequent fraud-laden military contracting) of Iraq to the threat of international terrorism. To do this, they must somehow blame all instability in Iraq on al-Qaeda.

The truth is that sectarian violence kills far more people in Iraq than does any al-Qaeda attack.

The House of Representatives has approved H.CON.RES.63, which opposes the addition of troops to the Iraq occupation. The vote was 246-182.

I covered the debate's basic arguments in a previous diary: Iraq War Debate. Essentially, republicans mocked the seriousness of the situation by quoting terrorists and comparing Iraq to the Alamo. I am proud of my Democrats for providing this first step.