Because the first decade of war wasn't enough.Follow

If only there was an additional paragraph immediately following the line you quoted which might contain the answer you seek.




And perhaps, earlier in the paragraph which contained the line you quoted, there was some context which might explain why this face saving was required:



I'm not sure how to more clearly state that there were factions in Iraq which wanted the US out *now*, but the Iraqi government knew that would be a mistake, so they made an agreement to allow US troops to remain, but worded it as a scheduled withdrawal date (which, conveniently, was many years later than *now*) so as to appease those factions. Nobody except the most politically naive actually thought this was about moving forward with US troop withdrawal. It was always about setting a period of time during which US troops could remain in Iraq, with the understanding that this would be extended.

Well. Until Obama happened.

But it has everything to do with why the SOFA was worded that way. Which was the question you actually asked.




Correct. So they could save face. Do you understand the concept of saving face? It's when the leaders of a side involved in negotiations have supporters that demand something, but that something isn't reasonable, instead of forcing them to tell their own people to F off, you massage the language in the agreement so that it sounds more like what that sides supporters are demanding. Everyone at the table understands this. And usually even the folks being "fooled" understand this. But everyone gets to claim that they got what they demanded, while the necessary compromises are actually made.

I honestly didn't think I had to explain this.



Yes. And telling them to suck it, doesn't generally work. More importantly insisting that their own leaders tell them to do this is most likely going to result in no agreements being made. So you agree to language that allows those leaders to go back home and say that they got what their supporters wanted. That's what the whole deal was about. Clearly, the Iraqi government was not ready for the US to withdraw their troops, right? But it's not like they can come to the US and say "please stay, because we're not capable of controlling our own country". No political leader will ever say that. The point is that the agreement was written the way it was out of the assumption that the US would later push for their troops to remain longer, and the Iraqi government at that time would give in (but presumably with a new promise of a new withdrawal date). That way the US can be made out to be the bad guys, but what needs to be done gets done.

The problem is that the whole deal hinged on the US pushing for this extension. But Obama didn't. Hence basically ******** over Iraq in the process.

Edited, Nov 20th 2014 7:46pm by gbaji

Being this detached from reality must be so liberating. I almost envy you.

Anyway, one sentence with three laughable words.

Not hitting yourself in the head with a shovel isn't legally binding either. It's still a good idea though.




Absence of perfection is a crappy argument.

I'll also point out that there was a lot of "wiggle room" in the agreement that could have allowed for redefining US forces in Iraq so as to still allow them to remain in country. Obama choose not to do this. The point being that there were several things Obama could have done to keep some level of US troops in Iraq if he had chosen to do so. He chose not to. Thus, the absence of those troops, and any resulting instability which resulted, lies squarely on his shoulders.

Suck it up buttercup we are in the big boy club now. We have homegrown terrorism! That means its time to do our part!