Actually, what I posted there was a set of pretty solid facts.
It's worth noting that the Obama administration was negotiating an extension of the U.S. military presence in Iraq through 2010, but ended up walking away from the negotiations under pressure from senior U.S. military leaders who were adamant that they would never allow U.S. military personnel to remain in Iraq unless they were given full immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. This was a point that Iraq's leaders would not accept, so the U.S. left them to deal with their own sh!t-hole.
Oh, baloney. You just keep recycling and peddling the liberal talking points - word for word - and it was no more true then as it is now. This nonsense was long ago thoroughly debunked. There are no facts to be found in your argument. There is no doubt that the Bush administration, or even a McCain administration, would have been able to negotiate such an agreement vs. the completely half-hearted efforts by the Obama administration more interesting in saying they had “ended the war” rather than putting together a cohesive policy and serious diplomatic effort, so keeping the more substantial residual force that Maliki wanted was never in the cards and everything fell apart. They handled it as incompetently and corruptly as they have handled every other policy they have put forth. We are now living with the consequences.
I clearly remember the "immunity" requirement. However, I don't believe that Obama would allow any "pressure" from the military. But then, that may be why he fired so many top brass. Geeze, I hate giving him ANY credit for anything, and I'm still not certain why that is why he didn't insist while in a position of absolute power that "immunity" would be non-negotiable.