BTW, are any of us unsure as to why BushCo "failed" to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement
in Iraq and what all that might have to do with our struggles today?
Let Lawrence Wilkerson enlighten you:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49263362#50169555
= new reply since forum marked as read
it was left indeterminate and that's what a re-negotiation of SOFA would have been about.
Not sure they could have stayed without the right kinds of fortified structures to live in and, even though I'm certain we built a bunch of stuff while we were there, maybe it wasn't for us, by treaty, so that needed re-negotiation too (what would be built how and where) before we could begin to re-negotiate about residual forces.
I have a brother who worked for B & R in Afghanistan and the kinds of structures we're talking about aren't the sorts of things that just anyone can do, in just any amount of time, especially in the midst of high hostilities. Then there's the costs to consider, probably more doable in Afghanistan, where the number of troops we were supporting during that time was fewer than in Iraq, so there was enough budget room left to do those fortified bases, but in Iraq the troop count was high and over-all costs of the war there were crazy-high, so money for fortified bases was harder to get, hence those aspects of the SOFA were left open-ended for when Republicans expected to return to the public trough/our wallets and, thus, be able to specify what they wanted in the re-negotiated SOFA for Iraq.
All speculation on my part, of course.
