As the last combat troops leave Iraq…

Why are we not celebrating a V-I day, today?

Late yesterday, the last unit of combat troops left Iraq as the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the border from Iraq into Kuwait.

Where are the people mobbing the streets of New York, Chicago and San Francisco?

Where is the jubilant and soon-to-be-quoted-throughout-history Presidential address, praising the commitment, resolve and bravery of the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the sacrifices made by her sons and daughters in defeating tyranny?

Why are we not celebrating the establishment of the first democratic republic in the Middle East and the enfranchisement of millions of Iraqis?  Why are we not toasting the fact that for the first time since the fall of the Shah, the US will have a peaceful, secular and soon-to-be productive ally in the region and the first real check on the power of Iran?

A good many conservatives and military strategists believe that setting the arbitrary date of August 31, 2010 for the full withdrawal of all combat troops was penny-wise but pound-foolish; that it gave the enemy a date that it simply needed to wait out.  Accordingly, a lot of very smart and very highly regarded analysts think we might be back sooner rather than later.  But for now, combat operations have ended and aside from several high-profile incidents, the country is more stable now than it has been at any time since the 2003 invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It’s too early to say whether those analyses are correct or mistaken.

Could the reason for the silence marking today’s milestone be that the ruling class elite currently running this country regards the victory over evil in Iraq as a victory that history will credit to George W. Bush?  The man and administration that liberals have blamed for everything from sunspots to the failure of a trillion dollar boondoggle stimulus plan formulated a “surge” strategy that, along with a new set counterinsurgency tactics, finally subdued Al Qaeda in Iraq and turned the war from a quagmire into a historical victory. But that warfighting policy was fought tooth and nail by the very people pulling the levers of power today.  To acknowledge the success of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the Iraq War would be to acknowledge that all the vitriolic and hate-filled criticism of Bush and his war strategy was absolutely wrong.  To celebrate victory today is to celebrate the success of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Robert Gates and David Petraeus.  Acknowledging success today means acknowledging that the 2007 surge worked, something that liberal progressives are genetically incapable of doing. The Democrats successfully politicized the war effort in Iraq, shamelessly using the danger of the situation to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt among the American people and in so doing, poisoned the well of pride.

We should be holding ticker tape parades through the streets.  The returning soldiers and Marines should be treated as bona fide American heroes—a new greatest generation that took the fight to the lands of the people who plotted our downfall and attacked us nine years ago. This should be declared a national holiday.  The POTUS should address the American people on prime time television, simulcast on radio and the web, praising the American resolve, celebrating the defeat over evil and the superiority of American military power.  But he’s not going to do that.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a historic event in itself.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Another John Bolton prediction of Israeli attack on Iran

These are becoming all too common.

I acknowledge that Bolton has been sounding the alarm on Iranian nukes for longer than virtually anyone else.  I also acknowledge that he’s absolutely right about the extraordinary danger a nuclear armed Iran would be, especially with the leverage that the threat of using such a capability Iran would use to further destabilize the region.  I also acknowledge that, sooner or later, Bolton will be able to look in the camera and say: “I told you this was going to happen.”

We don’t need to be pressuring Iran.  We need to go Cuban Missile Crisis on the Russians, or some bad shtuff is gonna go down in the Middle East.

August 13:

August 2009:

 

September 2008:

 

 

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet?

From Wired.com's Danger Room:

In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young airman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?


Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

The airmen followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”


Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.

Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Top Officer Won’t Say | Danger Room | Wired.com

My sense is that by the time US commanders are given orders either way, the aircraft in question would have already completed their mission and returned safely to their own airspace.

From Article 9 of The Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq:

3. Surveillance and control over Iraqi airspace shall transfer to Iraqi authority
immediately upon entry into force of this Agreement.

4. Iraq may request from the United States Forces temporary support for the Iraqi
authorities in the mission of surveillance and control of Iraqi air space.

In reading the full agreement, it's apparent that if Iraq wants U.S. air defense forces to engage foreign aircraft flying through its airspace, the government of Iraq is expected to request assistance. I know of no formal agreement between the two countries that a violation of Iraq's airspace (a technical violation of sovereignty) would immediately place U.S. commanders in the position of having to give the order to repel or destroy the offending aircraft. This means coordination between the two countries at the highest levels of civilian authority.

I don't see any way that a decision to treat Israeli aircraft as hostile could be made by the time the mission is completed. So? Would the U.S. fire on Israeli jet? The question is moot.

Extra Point: The trip over Syria is probably just as quick and I frankly think the Israelis would get a bigger jolly out of flying over Syria (and defeating their air defenses) than a risky trip over Iraq.

Update: Allahpundit has a common sense take on the question, and believes Admiral Mullen's non-answer was the right one.  I agree--either answer would have ignited a firestorm.  But, mad right wing nuts that we are, isn't it fun to speculate just what conniptions Teh One might have?