(from AP article)

The U.S. is on track to complete its shift out of all Iraqi cities by June 2009. That is one of the milestones in a political-military campaign plan devised in 2007 by Gen. David Petraeus, when he was the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his political partner in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The goal also is in a preliminary security pact with the Iraqi government on the future U.S. military presence.
The timeline here is directly on target with the timeline stated in the leaked draft SOFA (sorta on hold in the adjacent thread). This seems the best confirmation I've seen yet that the SOFA is as reported - a withdrawal agreement (the latest AP story cited in the SOFA thread says that is exactly what it is entitled).

Now, let us all be clear about this combo (military shift of forces and "SOFA"). It is totally an Executive Branch effort of the Bush Administration - Congress has not been consulted in any meaningful way. So, let us not begin writing revisionist history before there is even ink on the agreement.

Note: The president has power to enter into a SOFA, without Congress (that type of agreement is a presidential executive agreement; as opposed to a presidentiial-congressional executive agreement); but only as to matters which are solely within the President's powers as CinC.

Some non-loopy I Law and Con Law types have been kicking this around on the Net. The "SOFA" does raise some valid constitutional issues (the "quote" below is not a direct quote, but my summary of points made in a number of blogs and articles):

1. Iraqi jurisdiction over US troops and contractors. Contrary to the usual SOFA & adverse to troops and contractors. Challenge based on Congress' Regulate the Armed Forces Clause (the basis for the UCMJ).

2. Mutual security provisions. Depends on the provisions' exact language - how automatic is the trigger requiring US to employ armed force in support of Iraq - may be completely adverse to what the best interests of the US are in the future. Challenge based on Congress' War Powers Clause (another issue is whether this is within AUMF).

3. Turnover of US bases & future aid to Iraq. Again depends on provisions' exact language. Challenge based on Congress' Power Over Possessions Clause and Appropriations Clause.
IMO, these are valid issues.

Assuming arguendo that the leaked versions are accurate, the provisions dealing with continued US operations in Iraq (Iraqi approvals, joint US-Iraqi command, etc.) may be nuts from a military standpoint.

My broken crystal ball gave a fleeting vision of we're moving out and Astan here we come - damn thing is broken, so no reliance there.

Here (SWC), let's try not to inflame this as was done after the withdrawal from Vietnam - we don't need that.