~~~~~~
OMG.... How may times has a statement like yours been shown to be false. America was not bound by the SOFA.
How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/21/how-the-obama-administration
The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president’s announcement today, but in fact several parts …
~~~~~~
The Truth About the Status of Forces Agreement | Flopping Aces
The Truth About the Status of Forces Agreement | Flopping Aces
Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers’ excessive demands, but he didn’t. Another point that Obama defenders use to excuse failure to renegotiate SoFA is the idea that the Obama Administration tried, but the Iraqis would not budge on the immunity issue for our troops; and a vote left up to parliament would never pass.
Oh that's a sterling defense :lamo
America wasn't bound by ANYTHING if we use your logic. Shock and Awe, we were bound by nothing more than our whim!
"A status of forces agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement. A SOFA does not constitute a security arrangement; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel present in a host country in support of the larger security arrangement. Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation."
Using your logic, there is no such thing as a status of forces agreement at all, the concept itself does not even exist, and that all troop presence in any country amounts to an occupation, and the host country has no rights or standing whatsoever.
FACT: There was never going to be any guarantee of immunity, not in Iraq, not in any war theater.
Name a single war where troops are guaranteed immunity from prosecution for war crimes.
This is a form of logic cooked up by the Elliot Abramses and Michael Ledeens of this world, people who never served and who view wars as "useful managed conflicts".
When the Right controls all of the messaging, they never fail to pay a think tank to invent an entire lexicon that suits their purposes and troop "guarantees of immunity" from prosecution of war crimes is certainly no exception. The reality however, is quite different, in that had we never gone into Iraq in the first place, we could guarantee that no American troops, or contractors, would commit war crimes. The Iraq Conflict wasn't ever a real war, because Congress never officially declared it a war. But the government of Iraq certainly seems to think it was a war. And they aren't willing to just paper over some of the atrocities committed by US troops.
I would love to live in your world, where Republican presidents unilaterally decide to invade countries on the basis of faulty cherry picked intelligence from guys named
"Curveball", then sign agreements which are then dismissed as nonexistent because the host country did not agree to the terms of the agreement regarding the unwelcome invasion in the first place, based on concepts which do not exist in the first place. And then leave it to Democratic presidents to clean up the mess afterward.
It all ties in with
Karl Rove's famous tirade in front of Ron Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Yep, there is no question that you righties are "creating your own reality".
"America is not bound by the Status of Forces Agreement." :lamo
I sure do hope we don't consult you guys when it comes time to negotiate our SOFA with Germany or South Korea.