All but lost in the furious vigil the national press is keeping over Barack Obama’s VP selection is news that the United States is close to finalizing a deal with the Iraqi government that could have U.S. troops leaving Iraqi cities as soon as June 30, 2009.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Baghdad today for an unannounced meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to address outstanding issues left unresolved by the nations’ respective negotiators as they drew up the plans and an accompanying “strategic framework agreement,“ which spells out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, according to the Associated Press.

As for the withdrawal agreement itself, the AP reports:

In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date—most likely the end of 2011—by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while still being able to assist Iraqi forces as needed.

U.S. officials said the outstanding issues include the timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals, immunity for U.S. troops and the handling of Iraqi prisoners, and Rice said simply, “There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate. The agreement rests on aspirational timelines.“

Yes, the T-word—timeline—which the Bush Administration has been so averse to using.

The AP said Rice described her visit as “a chance for me to meet with the prime minister and see what we can do from Washington to get to closure.“

Closure. In Iraq. By 2011.

Maybe it’s just me, but there was something about hearing Rice use that word—“closure”—that seemed to indicate an oblique resignation among Bush Administration officials that a long-term American presence in Iraq is not only unsustainable and undesirable, but it is also unwanted.

If the agreement is reached, does it make Iraq more or less of an issue for the general election campaign?