Would the US Defend Iraq's Airspace?

"The second agreement is a long-term "strategic framework" the administration has said will establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." A "statement of principles" that Bush and Maliki signed in December said the framework, which they plan to sign by July 31 to take effect Jan. 1, included "security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace."

Congressional Democrats have said that the agreement, as outlined by the administration, constitutes a defense treaty commitment requiring Senate ratification. The administration has said it is "nonbinding," will not include language on specific troop numbers or authorize permanent bases, and does not commit the United States to defend Iraq. It also asserts that the agreement is within Bush's executive authority. "  Karen de Young last Spring

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Against whom?   You know the answer. 

The Muslims will laugh at the thought that the US might defend Iraq's airspace against the Israelis, but the Israelis went to GW Bush to ask for overflight clearance to reach Iran and Natanz.  This clearance was denied by the US.  The United States is obligated by international law to defend Iraq.  President Bush's bogus assertion notwithstranding, an occupying power is obligated to defend the territory of a state that it occupies.  That is a general principle.  The agreement between the US and Iraq is specific at Paragraph 27, subparagraph 3.

Download SE_SOFA

Israel has been steadily working itself into a frenzy over the Iranian nuclear program.  The Iranians launched an orbiter of their own this week. The Israelis are now under intense international scrutiny (unobstructed by the Obama Administration) for their conduct in Gaza.  They are having a national election next week in which the advantage seems to lie with whichever party can make the most bellicose noises.  All of these factors point to increasing Israeli instability in decision making.

Would Israel try to "bull" its way past the US Air Force and across Iraq relying on a US "failure of will" to make the thing work?  This would be a crazy thing to do, but many crazy things have been seen lately.

I trust that US air defense posture in Iraq is adequate?  pl

Comments

[Clifford Kiracofe]

For decades, the Zionist state has sought some sort of "periphery" strategy against the Arab world. Thus its relations with Turkey and Iran and India not to mention more recent links to Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Should Israel unleash against Iran as a "game-changer" (per Harper) what happens to any future relationship with Iran against the Arabs? Cyrus has been dead some thousands of years and there are only perhaps 20,000 or so Jews in Iran.

And just how does Israel see itself maintaining the Turkey card for much longer? Cosmopolitans in the Istanbul secular elite notwithstanding, it would be hard to categorize the rural folks in the Anatolian countryside as "pro-Israel" these days.

And as for India, with the wave of radical Islam surging over Pakistan it will not be long before it washes (if not surges) into India. With 150 Muslim citizens inside India, will certain Hindu elites be so reckless as to continue their affair with the Zionist entity?

So that leaves the US but another 911 here and 300 million Americans might start connecting dots to AIPAC and Tel Aviv and etc. despite the continuous massive propaganda/brain washing from the "pro-Zionist" print and electronic media.

[Sidney O. Smith III]

Harper writes, “One obvious question is if Israel is so mad at this point as to contemplate using nuclear arms. I personally doubt it, but…”

A strategic mindset of using disproportionate force against innocent civilians validates the use of nuclear weapons. It’s the Gaza incursion writ large and such thinking appears deeply ensconced in the Israeli collective psyche.

Seems to me that an attack on Iran could start with a limited strike using conventional weapons followed by a Iranian response that, in turns, leads to nuclear retaliation. Such an escalation reflects a three step historical pattern repeated time and time again: provocation, response, massive retaliation, as was most recently seen in Gaza. Plus, when Cheney and Wurmser “took off from the wish” (Sherman Kent’s words) in 07 and called for a limited strike against Iran, such a massive retaliation was the admitted endgame.

[curious]

The biggest flaw of Israel using nuke:

1. It will kill too many people. If they think international backlash from latest Gaza bombing is unpleasant, the use of nuke will definitely put them in global pariah status for at least 2 decades.

2. It won't destroy completely Iranian nuke program (they are not going to be able to find every enrichment facilities) on the contrary it will justify Iranian nuclear program. And they can assure retaliation . Israel is much denser country 2-3 nukes will pretty much wipes out their 3 major cities and port. And Israel will forever crippled with 3-4 millions population wiped out. Iran might still function with 3-4 major cities wiped out, due to much larger size. So in war of nuclear attrition, Israel is going to disappear first.

3. Even talking about nuclear attack is automatic trigger of middle east nuclear race. within 5 yrs every single Israel neighbors will have nuclear. (this is 60's technology folks. not brain surgery.)

-------------

notice we are now speculating mini nuclear war, instead of ground troop movement. This is how far the middle east geopolitics has changed.

current confrontation is heading toward nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran in less than a decade.

[Cieran]

Sidney:

Thanks for your well-considered thoughts. About this one:

A strategic mindset of using disproportionate force against innocent civilians validates the use of nuclear weapons. It’s the Gaza incursion writ large and such thinking appears deeply ensconced in the Israeli collective psyche.

Use of nuclear WMD by Israel is the ultimate "game-changer" in the middle east, and I sincerely hope that the citizens of Israel appreciate that the game that would be irrevocably changed by such acts, and most probably for the worse, is their own.

Any kind of nuclear strike by Israel will open up a Pandora's box of ugly consequences. The international backlash could prove impossible to stop (it would be infinitely worse than Gaza), and such a strike would be an explicit admission that Israel owns a clandestine nuclear weapons program, necessitating all kinds of international sanctions (including those arising from U.S. law) which would then be visited upon the Israeli nation.

From a strategic perspective, Israel's nuclear arsenal thus has its greatest value when it is ambiguous, hidden, and hence unused. Once they fire nuclear weapons at anyone, they will have risked crossing a Rubicon that would lead directly to the demise of their nation.

[J]

Colonel,

I find this latest 'troubling':

Israel to Obama: hold Iran's feet to fire, or else | U.S. | Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51538A20090206?sp=true

[wb]

understand this, israel, after the united states and china, has the third largest nuclear force in the world. she has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy every city above 50,000 population in the united states. obama is not stupid, neither are the russians. iran is not worth the cost. not only will israelis will be allowed to transit iraq, most likely they will help. remember us military force in all of persian gulf is vastly outnumbered by idf. persian gulf is a bathtub. us navy navy would be pulverised by idf. do not forget israel has five times fought forces far outnumbering their own. my advice to obama is to just act like he didn't see a thing and let the jews take care of the iranian threat once and for all.

[Patrick Lang]

all

wb appears to be in the US. His comments are illustrative of the kind of breast beating ignorance of actual military capability that seems to infect many supporters of Israel. wb's threats of Israeli war against the US are breath taking in their self deception. pl

[Patrick Lang]

all

BTW, there are 601 cities in the US with populations greater than 50,000. pl

[Brett J]

Agreed, Pat, re breathtaking self deception, particularly considering wb's claims are easily exposed through a brisk Googling. ...pointing out a country's defense force is larger than another one's navy that's 1000s of miles away from its own state - classy.

[Ian]

William R. Cumming: "Curiosity! What is the argument again that we are a de jure "Occupying Power" and how is that detailed and where?"

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the relevant international law is the Hague Convention of 1907. "Laws and Customs of War on Land," Section III ("Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State"). Here's what it says (italics mine):

Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

As I understand them, articles 42 and 43 mean that de facto control is a sufficient condition for de jure control.

The US invaded and occupied all of Iraq. There is now a partial withdrawal underway, but quite a lot of Iraq's territory and all of its airspace are still under effective American control. Article 43 then makes the US responsible for monitoring Iraqi airspace, "the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant."

I'm not sure why having set up a more compliant government should change this. Yes, they signed a SOFA, but I have a hard time believing that the presence of 100k American troops had no effect on their decision. As long as the US has boots on the ground and planes in the sky, it's hard to believe that the new Iraqi government is fully sovereign over all of its territory.

If the US doesn't like being responsible for future events in Iraq, it should withdraw.

---------------

Wow, wb, I had no idea that Israel has more nukes than Russia.

A myth of omnipotence is a useful thing, but countries that start to believe their own propaganda are setting themselves up for disaster. Nothing could be more dangerous for the state of Israel than this kind of self deception. That this sort of thing is coming from American "friends" of Israel who are well out of harms way is even worse.

[Sidney O. Smith III]

It wouldn’t surprise me if Isaac Edward Leibowitz, of blessed memory, had the same attitude as “wb” before the Flame Deluge.