Jihadin wrote:
SOFA Agreement...............

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's almost as if the entire war was a waste of money, effort and lives and we never should have had our asses over there in the first place.

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.[1] Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

 Jihadin wrote:
You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?

 Jihadin wrote:
You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama: "Hey, about the SOFA Agreement?"
Iraq: "Um. No."
Obama "But.."
Iraq "We're in control now. Thank you for the money and generators."
Obama "Sure?"
Iraq "Go infidel."

Obama "Tell the military in Iraq they have 30+ days to get everything out."

We're about to have a repeat I think in Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
You do not remember the thread when US pulled out from Iraq and Whembly hammering its Obama fault for not signing a SOFA Agreement?

 whembly wrote:
But, then again, at some point the Iraqis need to stand on their own two-feet... I was just arguing that the military would make that recommendation, and not just the politicians.lol

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

Iraqis are still angry over incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or Haditha, when U.S. troops killed Iraqi civilians in Anbar province, and want American troops subject to Iraqi law.

American commanders don't want to risk having their forces end up in an Iraqi courtroom if they're forced to defend themselves in a still-hostile environment.

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.[1] Under international law a status of forces agreement differs from military occupation.

 Ouze wrote:
When there was that rape of a girl in Japan by Marines (i think) a few years ago, were they prosecuted locally or under UCMJ? The details escape me, I think it was about a decade ago.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, then again, at some point the Iraqis need to stand on their own two-feet... I was just arguing that the military would make that recommendation, and not just the politicians.lol

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of the military, when it's subservient to our civilian leadership as in the United States.

Whether we go to war, remain at war, fight or surrender, support or withdraw, these are all political decisions, made on a political timetable, not military ones. You've read Starship Troopers, right?

 whembly wrote:
I'm saying, this, for the the blood, sweat and tears we spent in this war, was bugging out like that the smart thing to do? You'd think the commanders on the ground can give the politicians what it would take to gracefully exit Iraq and give the Iraqis a fighting chance to survive on their own. Was the question even asked?

 Ouze wrote:
I just googled it. It was 1995 (man, I'm getting old) and at least in that case, they were handed over for prosecution (and conviction, and imprisonment) before getting a dishonorable.

So it looks like there is some flex between different SOFA's.

And yes, they were not too pleased with Japanese prison, but wiki says they got off light compared with how the UCMJ would have treated them (I don't know what that would have been but Jihadin probably does?)