No, you really need to go back and read the account of what actually happened in Iraq that lead to the end of US involvement.Since when do agreements expire under a new President? Obama tried to negotiate for an extension or more troops left behind. I guess he can unilaterally cancel the agreement but that would be a mess and lead to the situation of US troops in Iraq against the wishes of the people and government. That's war...
In US Exit from Iraq, Failed Efforts and Challenges
Maliki was more than willing to keep the US troops in Iraq but Obama, as is his established MO, kept undercutting the negotiation process and made it impossible to ever really negotiate a SOFA continuance. Obama broke off the talks when Maliki was still willing to negotiate:
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
But there was no agreement. Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
Ending the Effort
On Oct. 21, Mr. Obama held another videoconference with Mr. Maliki — his first such discussion since the talks began in June. The negotiations were over, and all of the American troops would be coming home.
Maliki actually favored the larger troop presence, it was the continuing down sizing by Obama that was hampering the deal as well as his juvenile attempts at reshuffling the Iraqi government as a prerequisite to a SOFA agreement.
I'm sorry, what part of Maliki requesting US fighter jets and attack Helicopters come back to Iraq to attack ISIS are you not understanding?When were we invited into the US? I'm not defending I'm just pointing out that there's a lot more to the situation than "Obama left Iraq and now look at it".
Please link a reputable news site with an article pertaining to that. MMC linked an article with Maliki asking for US jets and attack helicopters but I'm not familiar with the Iraqi government asking us back into the country or asking for a US bombing campaign before ISIS started gaining territory.
More to the point, at the time Obama said he pledged US support for Iraq and.... did not a damn thing. He did what he is best at: He dithered.
YES! Obama's military advisers requested a large scale troop involvement in Iraq partly to train the Iraqi military into a competent fighting force. We have known for many years that the Iraqi military was not ready for prime time. Why is it that only you and Obama seem to have been out of the loop?They obviously stated ISIS was a growing threat. Did they state that the Iraqi military wouldn't be able to handle the situation? Did they state that mass desertion would lead to a collapse of the Iraqi military? The agreement to leave Iraq was based on the fact we spent a decade training and outfitting the Iraqi military to handle Iraqi issues.
It was the best he could have done. What he ended up doing was almost the worst possible thing he could have done. He inadvertently supported ISIS in Syria and left Iraq twisting in the wind.So using hindsight as a benefit I'm not sure what you state Obama should of done is even correct.
Actually, I'm not sure there is a worse alternative than the path Obama took. From the collapse of the SOFA negotiations to the barbarian horse plowing through Iraqi towns every failure has Obama's finger prints on it. His actions in the SOFA deal make BIDEN seem like the smarter of the two.