Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Chinese will take over. They need to protect their copper mining operation.
The NATO and western roles will continue in relation to counter-terrorism, stability and initiatives focused on controlling the heroin trade, which in turn has a knock on effect in terms of global organised crime.
The nature of the forces may change to more specialist units and intelligence, however to ignore Afghanistan in relation to such possible threats would be foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSI
"Joe Biden may be withdrawing US troops from the ground, but given the continuing threat of terrorism that will emanate from Afghanistan it is unlikely that NATO will be able to fully disengage".
^^^^^^^^This. We left Iraq because we didn't have a status of forces agreement (SOFA), and Iraq wouldn't renew the SOFA in a way that protected our troops. So we left. And that's fine. The place is a fleapit.
When I think of certain Arab countries, I think of the line from the movie Syriana: "Before the oil, you were chopping each other's heads off in the desert and nobody cared. When the oil is gone, you'll be chopping each other's heads off in the desert and nobody will care."
--
Again, that’s not the reason why we left. Do we have troops there now? Yes. Do we have a current signed and approved SOFA? No.
I will agree with you that that is the reason given by our corrupt media organizations. You are just repeating that lie, though.
We left because Obama tried to score political points and it all blew up on him when ISIS took 20,000 square miles of territory, which is about the size of West Virginia.
We went back in, without a SOFA, and stopped ISIS and retook everything back.
I’m not gonna say they are defeated because when Biden ultimately withdraws troops out of Iraq, another terrorist regime will step forward, maybe even calling themselves ISIL, and they will retake some land back and start again.
Again, that’s not the reason why we left. Do we have troops there now? Yes. Do we have a current signed and approved SOFA? No.
I will agree with you that that is the reason given by our corrupt media organizations. You are just repeating that lie, though.
We left because Obama tried to score political points and it all blew up on him when ISIS took 20,000 square miles of territory, which is about the size of West Virginia.
We went back in, without a SOFA, and stopped ISIS and retook everything back.
I’m not gonna say they are defeated because when Biden ultimately withdraws troops out of Iraq, another terrorist regime will step forward, maybe even calling themselves ISIL, and they will retake some land back and start again.
Again, you are incorrect. The SOFA signed by Bush required all US combat troops to withdraw by 2012, and made contractors exposed to criminal charges, among other things.
You can say and believe anything you want, but the fact is this is what happened.
Again, you are incorrect. The SOFA signed by Bush required all US combat troops to withdraw by 2012, and made contractors exposed to criminal charges, among other things.
You can say and believe anything you want, but the fact is this is what happened.
Answer me these questions. Why are active duty troops and contractors there right now without a SOFA?
Why is it somehow unsafe for them to be there without a SOFA when Obama was the President, and now it’s safe for them to be there under Trump/Biden without a SOFA?
The answer is that it’s fine for them to be there without a SOFA, no matter who the President is, and Obama used a BS reason to pull them out with.
Answer me these questions. Why are active duty troops and contractors there right now without a SOFA?
Troops are there either under the State Department, thus diplomatic agreements, a visiting forces agreement, or a variety of operational agreements.
Damn, were you ever in the military? If so, how do you not know these things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Why is it somehow unsafe for them to be there without a SOFA when Obama was the President, and now it’s safe for them to be there under Trump/Biden without a SOFA?
A SOFA is for forces stationed in a host country. Without a SOFA, forces are exposed to criminal and civil liability for actions taken. So that Army group who gets attacks, fires back, can be criminally liable and be held in an Iraqi prison, go through Iraq courts, etc. Civilian contractors are even more exposed, a simple car accident can land a contractor in prison though a corrupt justice system.
No, we, the USA, do not expose our forces to such absurdities.
The troops that were there after operated under the State Department, they have diplomatic agreements and are pretty well defined regarding the scope of what troops can do. Same with any visiting forces agreements and operational agreements. An operational agreement for example will have some Army folks training the Iraqis how to drive tanks, that is the scope of what they can do.
When we went back to Iraq in 2014, it was at the invitation of the Iraqi government. There is no SOFA, their are agreements for what was it, Operational Resolve? That outlined the scope of what US forces can do, which was mostly air strikes and a series of special forces deployments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
The answer is that it’s fine for them to be there without a SOFA, no matter who the President is, and Obama used a BS reason to pull them out with.
No, it is not fine without a SOFA, and it sure as hell is not fine when the country does not want foreign troops in it. The US and Iraq are not enemies, thus the US should not be illegally occupying any country, let alone a friendly one. You are essentially requesting the US invade Iraq again and occupy it.
The US in a country without a SOFA is doing nothing more than exposing US troops and contractors to the whims of the Iraqi justice system. No thanks, I cannot see any leader deploying troops in such a manner without legal protection. Aside from not having a SOFA, the Iraqi government wanted combat troops to leave. Ignoring this would mean violating the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, thus illegally occupying Iraq, and Iraq would have the right to use all means to expel an occupational force from its soil.
Troops are there either under the State Department, thus diplomatic agreements, a visiting forces agreement, or a variety of operational agreements.
Damn, were you ever in the military? If so, how do you not know these things?
A SOFA is for forces stationed in a host country. Without a SOFA, forces are exposed to criminal and civil liability for actions taken. So that Army group who gets attacks, fires back, can be criminally liable and be held in an Iraqi prison, go through Iraq courts, etc. Civilian contractors are even more exposed, a simple car accident can land a contractor in prison though a corrupt justice system.
No, we, the USA, do not expose our forces to such absurdities.
The troops that were there after operated under the State Department, they have diplomatic agreements and are pretty well defined regarding the scope of what troops can do. Same with any visiting forces agreements and operational agreements. An operational agreement for example will have some Army folks training the Iraqis how to drive tanks, that is the scope of what they can do.
When we went back to Iraq in 2014, it was at the invitation of the Iraqi government. There is no SOFA, their are agreements for what was it, Operational Resolve? That outlined the scope of what US forces can do, which was mostly air strikes and a series of special forces deployments.
No, it is not fine without a SOFA, and it sure as hell is not fine when the country does not want foreign troops in it. The US and Iraq are not enemies, thus the US should not be illegally occupying any country, let alone a friendly one. You are essentially requesting the US invade Iraq again and occupy it.
The US in a country without a SOFA is doing nothing more than exposing US troops and contractors to the whims of the Iraqi justice system. No thanks, I cannot see any leader deploying troops in such a manner without legal protection. Aside from not having a SOFA, the Iraqi government wanted combat troops to leave. Ignoring this would mean violating the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, thus illegally occupying Iraq, and Iraq would have the right to use all means to expel an occupational force from its soil.
I get all that already and I don’t need it defined as I fully understand the differences. What I’m telling you is that Obama pulled us out, his administration did not want us to stay. Period. The Iraqis could’ve easily had their minds changed, if they even wanted us to leave in the first place. As you full well know, countries love to say one thing publicly while telling us the real story behind the scenes.
As it is, because of Obama’s blunder, how many people died needlessly? Funny how they wanted us to come back when it was clear ISIS was taking their own weapons without much of a fight. That’s why I’m skeptical if they even wanted us to leave in the first place because they knew their military was a bunch of cowards and completely incapable. Obama probably sold them out, forced their hand.
You keep writing it was the SOFA, it was the SOFA, and I keep writing that was the excuse Obama used when he disregarded his Generals and pulled out. Guess who is now ignoring his Generals in AFG?
Anyway, no point in continuing this because you don’t see the point and just want to give me lines taken out of the Washington Post.
Anyway, no point in continuing this because you don’t see the point and just want to give me lines taken out of the Washington Post.
Correct--there's no point. Because you are determined to blame Obama. And, of course, the left-leaning "mainstream media." After TWO PEOPLE have explained to you in great detail how important it is to have a SOFA in place when the US has a large amount troops in a foreign country.
Some people just can't get past the politics. If Obama had stayed, and US troops had ended up tried in some Iraqi kangaroo court, there's no doubt in my mind that you'd be on here ranting about how Obama could have pulled the troops out and didn't.
Semantics. There are troops there now. True, they aren’t “stationed” there. Does that make them less real?
Very few troops, and yes, they are real. And covered under the auspices of State Department. So, covered under diplomatic immunity. Something you couldn't do with the troop level where they were in 2011.
--
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
