General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Most of us here were against the invasion of Iraq, correct? [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Not willingly, mind you.
About that Iraq withdrawal
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/
Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason theyre being withdrawn isnt because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried but failed to get out of this obligation. Again, listen to the White House itself:
The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqis wanted troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration. . . .
The Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay, an administration official said. We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didnt want to give immunity.
The Obama administration as its telling you itself was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they werent just willing, but eager). The only reason they arent is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause . As we know, the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil (and its government and owners must never be subject to the rule of law in any context). So Obama was willing (even desirous) to keep troops there, but the Iraqis refused to meet his demands (more on that fact from Foreign Policys Josh Rogin).