Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It's worded as a withdrawal date, because that's how it had to be worded, but the actual withdrawal date was always intended to be extended as needed.
Please explain to me why it had to be worded that way as opposed to remaining there pending approval of the new government.
If only there was an additional paragraph immediately following the line you quoted which might contain the answer you seek.
gbaji wrote:
Every reasonably savvy person saw this as the face saving measure that it was.
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:
gbaji wrote:
The alternative was being booted out "now". The SOFA was protested by anti-US factions in Iraq because it allowed US troops to remain in the country.
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.