They updated the article
Non-bindlng implies something just for show to me.
My understanding of the Iraqi Governmental workings is shaky at best, but, from what I gather, it is non-binding until the Prime Minister signs it. Once you have the act of Parliament, signed by the Prime Minister, the government is obligated to act on it.
Points to remember:
This Prime Minister is a "caretaker" because he resigned in November over protests that he, and this government, were puppets of Iran.
I'm reading reports that the parliament did reach a quorum, but also that no Sunni or Kurdish MP's showed up. How this plays out on the "will of the Iraqi people" narrative remains to be seen.
If we actually start making concrete preparations to leave, the various militia groups are likely to start killing each other sooner rather than later. This could also effect the narrative.
If this goes through and we start to withdraw we are likely to find out exactly how much operational control the Iranians have over the militias. Politically seeing us out of Iraq is a win for them, but it's not what the various fighters mean when they vow revenge. They want blood. If Iran can't keep them under control, this could still get kinetic.
To RKL's and WLJ's comments, if we follow the plan we did in withdrawal from northern Syria, we won't leave much of anything useful behind. We pretty much leveled those bases on the way out.
