Comment Re:Obama, not Bush 2, responsible for ISIS ... (Score 1) 270
In 2011, the Iraqi PM made the same offer. Even he acknowledged it was pointless, since the Iraqi parliament had to agree to it, and they were unwilling to do so.
That is not true.
Yes, it is true; see No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq where Mr. Kahl, "the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration" said,
Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser...
Which is basically what I said in my next sentence. "Working out the internal politics" included al Maliki working out a deal with Parliament, working out a framework to present the deal to the Iraqi public, etc.
You continued with
The Iraqis needed time to work out the internal politics of immunity but the US pushed them for a public position before they were ready so the public position was no immunity. Had to US given them the time they wanted the answer may have been quite different, as it always was in the past once the US sweetened the deal.
That's simply wishful thinking on your part. You want it to be true so that you can blame the Obama administration.
No, al Maliki said he needed this time. Numerous foreign policy experts have criticized the Obama admin for forcing Iraq to take a public position on immunity before the internal Iraqi negotiations and planning had taken place. The experts considered this one of the Obama admins major blunders.
Its actually quite simple. Going forward the new guy won't be saddled with someone else's deal, the new guy will go forward with his own deal.
Gah! The "new guy" was saddled with the agreement! That's the whole point.
No. The actual point is that there is an agreement on the departure of the invasion and occupational forces. For diplomatic and political reasons that era needed a fixed and unambiguous end. This agreement, for the era of occupation, largely covered a timeframe on the earlier President's watch and only briefly stretched into the next President's watch.
Also for diplomatic and political reasons a separate deal was required with a fully sovereign and independent Iraq for future US forces that would participate in anti-terror, training, support, liaison, etc. The time frame for this era of cooperation was entirely on the next President's watch so both the US and Iraqi government agreed that this future President should negotiate the deal.