The "new" new Baghdad security plan

We'll find out tomorrow, but right now, the pre-press for Maliki's visit seems to indicate that the "new" security plan for Iraq will consist of shifting US forces into Baghdad and shifting Iraqi forces out into the rest of the country.

I see two potential problems here: 1) The US forces creating more chaos and more resentment in Baghdad. 2) The insurgency shifting, as insurgencies do, to the less well defended rest of the country.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

(Also, notice how quickly the debate on troop levels has changed. Remember it was just a month ago that the White House was floating stories about a coming pre-election withdrawal. If politicians no longer feel they can even tell a credible lie about Iraq being a success, that should tell you how bad Iraq really is.)

Later: In the NYTimes pre-press piece, they have a lengthy section on the Iraqis' desire to end the legal immunity enjoyed by US troops, and present this as an issue that Maliki intends to bring up with President Bush. But it was my impression that all such SOF agreements are passed through the host country's legislature, and it would seem to me that they could be similarly voided. So does he really need to ask? Couldn't they just do it(even though they wouldn't be able to enforce it?)

I don't know if there is an SOF with Iraq or under what legal construct this immunity has been granted or claimed. Anybody know?