Blasts from the Past

Follow this link and you'll find an awe-inspiring post from Blackfive. It reveals the raw courage and commitment of one of our troops, recovering from combat wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It's likely you've already seen it - several high traffic blogs have linked it this weekend. It's a sensation. It's that good - it's worthy of all the attention it gets.

And it's over a year old. Which is about par for the course on Iraq news in certain blogs these days. (Did you know Victory in Iraq Day was November 22 of this year?) Based on that one-year-behind timetable, in about six months or so they're going to discover this story:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A few days after the New York Times published a story detailing network reporters’ concerns about war coverage, three soldiers wounded in Iraq expressed a dim view of how they see the war depicted on television.

"You always hear about the explosions or people being killed, but you never really hear about how the people are being helped, or how much they appreciate it," Spc. Hein Tran, 28, of Milpitas, Calif., said after receiving a Purple Heart today at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for wounds suffered May 10 in an explosion northeast of Baghdad.

Pfc. Alex Knapp, 22, of Shelby Township, Mich., who lost both legs in a roadside bombing on March 14, agreed with Tran.

"It's a little on the negative side because all we really hear about are deaths and injuries," Knapp said.

That's from June, 2008. Those folks who aren't overly excited from reading that part will keep reading and eventually discover this:

"It is time for us to come home, and I truly believe that," Tran said. "I think Iraq can hold its own right now if we were to leave."

Mrs G in the Corner

Follow this link, and not only will you get to read the thoughts of Victor Davis Hanson, you'll discover a VALOUR-IT ad, space for which was generously donated by the good folks at NRO.

Oh, and the ad itself was created by the rather tireless Mrs G.

Last Chance

These auctions will end today, Saturday 29 November - this is your last chance to score one for VALOUR-IT.

And the prices on these volumes are significantly lower than those on the first wave. Don't delay, the end is near and deals await!

Iraq SOFA Approved

It's official: Barack Obama's "16 month" withdrawal from Iraq must begin no later than two years from next September. Unless conditions change, then it might be sooner or later.

*****

Thanksgiving in America, and in Iraq the Parliament approved the Status of Forces Agreement. The news was scarcely noted on our shores as coverage of our national day of plenty gave way to that of the busiest shopping day of the year even as both vied with reports of terror in faraway places for the attention of those not otherwise engaged.

And the English language version of the document was finally released, clarifying some of the issues raised by the previously available translations of the Arabic version. Those questions were noted here, but most are resolved in the now released official English version.

The withdrawal from cities and towns (Article 24):

All United States combat Forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

And the total withdrawal (also Article 24) must indeed be accomplished "no later than December 31, 2011" - meaning President-elect Obama's "16 months" must begin no later than two years from next September. (The withdrawal of combat Brigades, however, began months ago and is ongoing.)

Unless both Parties agree that conditions have changed (Article 27):

In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United Sates shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.

Meanwhile, as "combat forces" withdraw, training and support forces remain (Article 27):

The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon request by the government of Iraq.

But (Article 24),

The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.

But at least the agreement is final, right? Well, maybe not:

The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal. The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year.

And will provincial governments (after the provincial elections scheduled for January) also have input on these issues? One might expect they certainly would.

One final note (for now).You'll likely hear some chatter regarding "controls on private security contractors" established by this document. Much of this chatter will be misguided and uninformed. The SOFA only applies to military forces in Iraq - meaning the DoD. (See the definitions in Article 3. For example, "Member of the civilian component" in this agreement is defined as "a civilian employed by the United States Department of Defense". "Contractors" are defined as those in Iraq under contract with U.S. Forces, and U.S. Forces members are defined as members of the Army, Navy, etc.) This agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with the State Department.

Why does that matter? For the most part it's State, not Defense*, that employs the much (and usually wrongly) maligned "private security contractors" of the Blackwater variety. "Security contractors" employed by DoD are used to check I.D. at the DFAC. The SOFA defines who might have legal jurisdiction over one if they were to sneak off base and steal a brass lamp from a shop. It does not address the hypothetical fate of one of the members of State's (soon to be Hillary Clinton's) private Army if they were accused of shooting up a town square in response to a perceived threat.

Footnotes:

*There are (non-security) contractors for Defense that might hire (sub contract) private security; they may be covered under this agreement.

And if you think President-elect Obama opposes the SOFA, think again.

Master and Commander

A holiday weekend Mudville movie: Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World.

The full feature awaits below, but before proceeding, check out these Navy-related items from the Valour-IT auction:

Six Frigates (autographed by author) The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy

A Most Fortunate Ship (autographed by author) A Narrative History of Old Ironsides

The Two-Ocean War (w/ Commemorative Copper Medallion)

Amazingly: one of those items has no bids on it at the time of this post. Someone's going to get a steal...

If none of those suit your fancy, there are still open auctions on autographed works by noted military science fiction authors David Weber and David Williams. These auctions will end Saturday 29 November - don't wait, this is your last chance to score one for VALOUR-IT.

All right, this ends our pre-movie public service announcement - on with the show:

*****

Black Friday

at Amazon. Click through here, avoid the traffic, and they'll drop a few pennies in the Mudville coffer, too.

If you'd prefer a one-of-kind item for the second amendment enthusiast on your Christmas list, here's an author-autographed copy of American Rifle - a Biography, a Valour-IT auction ending today.

And it's not autographed, but if you've been delaying buying your copy of The War Within (one of Greyhawk's must reads on Iraq this year) here's a chance to add it to your library and support Soldiers' Angels in one swell foop. (Delay no more, this auction also ends today.)

Dean Ing

Next up on the auction block, two thrillers that should appeal to Team USAF fans. Author Dean Ing has donated two (out of print) autographed hardcover techno-thriller classics for Valour-IT.

From his wikipedia bio:

Dean Ing (born 1931) is an American author, who usually writes in the science fiction and techno-thriller genres.

Dean Charles Ing was formerly a member of the United States Air Force, an aerospace engineer, and a university professor who holds a doctorate in communications theory. He has been a professional writer since 1977.

The books he's graciously donated are:

The Ransom of Black Stealth One:

Ing constructs this techno-thriller around a low-performance aircraft built from materials giving almost no radar signature. Light and highly maneuverable. Made of filament and ceramic, invisible to radar. Able to change color to mimic the background against which it flies. The most advanced, stealthiest bird in the world. "Black Stealth One" is an ideal intelligence-gathering aircraft, and is equally desirable to the U.S.S.R. American intelligence proposes to guard the secret of Black Stealth's true value by letting the Soviets buy the plane from a defector, in reality palming off an earlier, inferior version. The plan goes awry when the real Black Stealth is stolen by a rogue U.S. agent with a grudge. Ing's thriller is a heady mixture of spy story and romance. Petra, the young and beautiful engineer held hostage by Black Stealth One's captor, uses her wits as well as her charm to survive and attempt to escape. Both American spy-masters and their Soviet counterparts attempt to locate, then to snare this amazing trophy.

The Nemesis Mission:

Drug lords forced out of Colombia and Shining Path guerrillas driven from Peru cooperate to establish a base in Mexico in this exciting techno-thriller. Key to the plan is a million dollars in drug money, to be flown out of Las Vegas with a planeload of hostages. But drug kingpin Simon Torres, in charge of the shipment, has a double-cross agenda. And the U.S. government has formed Task Force Enable to prevent the hostage-taking, recover the money and destroy the base. The clandestine operation depends on Nemesis, a new surveillance aircraft made by Aerosystems Unlimited, owned by Ben Ulmer, designer of Black Stealth One. This solar-powered light aircraft is able to land and take off almost anywhere, and to stay aloft for weeks collecting intelligence. When a Nemesis plane crashes in the Mexican jungle, the pilots, Wes Hardin and Colleen Morrison, are caught in the race between a CIA rescue team and revenge-bent guerrillas.

Get 'em quick - these auctions end Friday (28 Nov) morning.

Thanksgiving in Iraq and Afghanistan

Sgt Hook reports from Iraq:

Our mission has come to an end and we’ve passed the torch to our replacements. The vast majority of my unit has arrived home safely but a handful of us remain here waiting for a flight home and as much as I was hoping to report we’d spend Thanksgiving home with our loved ones, I cannot.

Meanwhile, over at Castle Argghhh, Bill (who's currently in Iraq "teaching Iraqi kaydets how to stay alive after slipping the surly bonds of earth") says "Every Iraqi soldier I saw this morning wished me a Happy Thanksgiving."

And you can, too! Over in the Dawn Patrol (in the right column if you're on the front page) the Mrs has compiled a list of milbloggers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan this Thanksgiving. If you have a few minutes to spare this busy day, visit a couple and leave 'em a 'thank you' in their comments section.

And thank you for visiting here.

Lights, Camera, Auction

All right - the auction for John Ringo's Last Centurion is over, and you didn't win. Here's an intro to one of the authors in the next batch of books (two of which he co-authored with Ringo).

From Laughing Wolf at Blackfive, an interview with author Travis S. Taylor:

For more of the interview, click here.

Taylor has donated a few autographed copies of his books to VALOUR-IT. You can bid for

Warp Speed (his first novel) here

The Quantum Connection (sequel to Warp Speed) here

Von Neuman's War (co-authored with John Ringo) here

Vorpal Blade (also co-authored with Ringo) here

There are more authors and more autographed books - see them all here.

If you're not a big military science fiction fan (or don't know one who would appreciate one of these as a Christmas Gift) you can donate to VALOUR-IT here:

And if you aren't familiar with Valour-IT, start here.

Valour - IT, The Reality

We have two days left in our fundraising drive, and although donations are trickling in, more is needed and it really doesn't take much to get us to where we need to be. We have given approximately 2700 voice-activated laptops in the past, and the need is still very high. Just a few bucks you would normallly have spent on lunch will help, hows about brown baggin it for a day and puttin in $5.00.

As a reminder to those that may not realize the significance Valour- IT plays in the day-to-day healing process of our wounded troops let me refer you to Chuck Z's "Something For You To Try" post (the first injured troop to benefit from Valour-IT) .

And as John of Argghhh!!! reminds us, although many of us may remember the days of pen and paper, our troops today are of the Internet Generation, with email, MySpace, Facebook, etc... The use of computers keep them connected to family and friends, while they are in far off lands. They also use the internet to take care of their personal business, say banking, insurance, legal or something as trivial as Christmas shopping for their families.

Now as Chuck and and John poignantly point out, we take to using the computer for granted AND the pen and paper, but take away the use of your hands and eyes, and you can see how our injured can get disconnected from the outside world and this can be devastating in their healing process.

Valour-IT is not all about Voice-activated laptops, the program has expanded. In the years since its founding in 2005, the project has acted to meet emerging needs and its mission of supporting the severely wounded. In addition to voice-controlled laptops, Valour-IT now helps provide active and whole-body video games such as Wii Sports, which is used to great effect in physical therapy, and personal GPS systems that help compensate for short-term memory loss and organizational/special challenges common in those with brain injuries.

Note: Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software that accompanies the laptops, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying patients in need of laptops and other technological support for their recovery. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:

* Balboa Naval Hospital
* Brooke Army Medical Center
* Madigan Regional Medical Center
* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)
* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)
* Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop or other technology to support their recovery and independence.

To donate to other teams, click here, but want to know why to donate to the Air Force team?

Click here, here and here

(All proceeds go to the same worthy cause, and to individual service members as the need arises, regardless of which team you pick.)

And if you aren't familiar with Valour-IT, start here.

Click here to get in on the Valour-IT auctions.

My adaptive version of the Soldiers Angel Motto:

May no soldier go unloved. May no soldier walk alone. May no soldier be forgotten, Until Even when they all come home.

Soldiers' Angels Auctions

Traveling? Busy tomorrow?

Don't forgert to leave a bid - here's the ebay page for all the Soldiers' Angels Valour-IT auctions. (A great place for some Christmas shopping, especially if you've got a science fiction fan on your list.)

Thanks to Laughing Wolf, who explains here and here.

UPDATE: The first auction to end will be for John Ringo's The Last Centurion:

In the second decade of the twenty-first century the world is struck by two catastrophes, a new mini-ice age and, nearly simultaneously, a plague to dwarf all previous experiences. Rising out of the disaster is the character known to history as “Bandit Six” an American Army officer caught up in the struggle to rebuild the world and prevent the fall of his homeland—despite the best efforts of politicians both elected and military. The Last Centurion is a memoir of one possible future, a world that is a darkling mirror of our own. Written “blog-style,” it pulls no punches in its descriptions of junk science, bad strategy and organic farming not to mention all three at once

Make that MilBlog style - and Ringo is a veteran of the 82nd Airborne. You can read sample chapters (the first nine!*) here.

*Trust me: you'll be hooked after two.

Gates Stays on at Pentagon?

First, your U.S. history trivia for the day: Henry Lewis Stimson, Secretary of War throughout World War Two under Democrat Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, was a Republican.

*****

And now back to the news. If the rumors are true, then Politico gets the headline right: Gates agrees to stay on under Obama. That's not the same as saying "Obama to keep Gates on at SecDef". Both might be true, but there was no "b" without "a", and as a certain local blogger opined shortly after a recent election:

SecDef? Current odds-on: Robert Gates.

I suspect he'll get to offer a private yea or nay to that question before anything more is heard.

Because if you're willing to be Secretary of Defense in the midst of war and a financial crisis, you aren't in it for the money and fame. And the same reasons that make Gates a great choice to keep at the Pentagon make him highly desirable in the private sector, too.

Some of those good reasons (overlooked by many) are detailed in this post at Acre of Independence, to which I offered this comment:

Don’t forget that Gates has a “vote” on this issue, too. More than anything else, the man deserves credit for staying on in what’s certainly an underpaid job with no safety net. If all goes well, good on Obama. If not, Gates screwed up - and BOTH are well aware of this. I’m not knocking Obama here (I agree that he made a great choice, assuming the choice has been made), I’m crediting Gates, whose motives might be described by that oft-ridiculed term “patriotism”.

Or perhaps simply "duty".

*****

We're about to take a look at some blog reactions to Gates as Obama's SecDef. Before proceeding, a quick look back at a story from early in the Primary campaign season...

The senator shook a few print reporters' hands -– told a few bloggers he doesn’t read blogs –- and then headed to the back of the plane -– a part he dubbed "the fun part of the plane" -– where the photographers sit.

Got it? Good. Onward then...

*****

Open Left:

The most important appointment decision Obama will make during the transition, bar none, is who becomes, or remains, Secretary of Defense. As I have noted in the past, the Department of Defense oversees the expenditure of 52% of all discretionary spending, rendering it literally impossible for any other cabinet Secretary to oversee as much federal money. Further, keeping Gates on would only worsen Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military.

Actually, if your first response to "defense" is "budget", then you shouldn't even bother to involve yourself in discussions of the military. (At least not the Executive branch aspect thereof - Congress determines that budget.)

Talk Left:

Unlike a lot of folks, I respect Bush 41ers like Gates. My one problem with this is that it sends the message that Dems can't do Defense. I would prefer General Wes Clark at Defense, but Congress would have to do a fix for that to happen (as a retired military officer, Clark is ineligible for the Defense post for 10 years after retirement. He retired in 2000.) I have no obvious eligible candidates for the job.

Retired generals don't always make good civilian heads of the military. (If for no other reason in this case - which there are - the USAF, Navy and Marines might feel slighted.) Isn't there a Democrat anywhere that can think of a well qualified civilian Democrat to be Secretary of Defense? If not, that sort of validates those feelings of inadequacy in that Department.

Actually, I like Talk Left. Because you can find thoughtful comment threads there like this one:

There was bad blood between the left and Gates.

If I recall correctly, the left was pretty upset that Gates was going to be appointed. We had days and days of video of Ray McGovern getting kicked out of some conference as he protested.

So my question is: given how he is staying on, how much of that prior upset of ours was justified, how much of that was understandable mistake, and how much was manufactured nonsense that does us little good?
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:22:08 PM EST

There was very, very good reason to be alarmed at Gates's appointment by Junior, but either his attitude has changed or he's been "misunderstood" or something (I have a vague recollection of reading he supported Reagan's mad idea to invade Nicaragua or something along those lines) because he's been very good as Sec Def and has gotten pretty convincing plaudits from Democrats who've dealt with him.
by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:43:08 PM EST

Speaking for me only I was not upset with Gates' appointment by Bush 43.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:25:35 PM EST

I was upset, but why? Kool-aid?

I don't like finding out that I drank the kool-aid or that people I supposedly trusted/admired/looked to as a reliable source poured me a glass.

I'm not qualified to judge, but it seems as though Gates has done a reasonable job.

And so what (if anything) does that say about us?
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM EST

I do not know what you mean by kool aid.

I certainly did not criticize anyone for opposing Gates. I just did not share their view.

Not sure what you are getting at.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST

I'm not saying you were criticizing anyone, I'm wondering if "we" (blogosphere, liberals, ... were overly critical of Gates and if so, why.) So when Ray McGovern and some others criticized him, IIRC, all the blogosphere (and AirAmerica) jumped into the fray to try and shout him down. But why? Should we have known he would be "reasonable". Were we being loyal opposition, or were our efforts just being (disloyal) opposition of the sort we are expecting in a few weeks.
by jerry on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:52:46 PM EST

Good question ...and one we should ask ourselves more often in retrospect.
<...>
I think it makes great sense for Obama to keep Gates on right now.

I think BTD also makes a strong point about how this plays into the perception that Dems don't do military matters well. BTD is right; it does, and that's a shame. But I think challenging that perception has to take a back seat to trying to get it right in Iraq so that we can start safely drawing down just as soon as possible. Gates seems to be the best person for the job right now, and Obama seems to be all about that--much to my relief.
by kempis on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM EST

That last bit is just about right - to be exactly right it should say "continue drawing down" rather than "start"

In roughly 10 days' time, the first of four 101st Airborne Division brigades will be completely redeployed from combat — about a month ahead of schedule.

About 550 soldiers with Fort Campbell's 3rd Brigade Combat Team returned from a 15-month deployment to Iraq on Friday, and in a few days the brigade will finish its redeployment.
<...>
The DoD has also announced that the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, which had been based in northwest Baghdad, will return home six weeks early. The unit that was scheduled to replace them will deploy to Afghanistan instead.

So...

"Planning for a withdrawal from Iraq" has been ongoing, of course - so it's too late for it "to begin as soon as possible". But that sort of phrasing might placate Obama voters who bought in to a pledge to "end the war."

..."Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, "the withdrawal agreement," possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public." That's as good as any description - because "The accord, which calls for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, has been the subject of tense negotiations for the past seven months." Although throughout that period American media have worked very hard to keep Americans ignorant of the proceedings. But once president-elect Obama gives a green light to the effort, they can start calling it the withdrawal agreement too. (And that's why keeping Gates is critical. Switching managers at this point could delay implementation. Ooops - I mean delay "planning for a withdrawal from Iraq to begin as soon as possible".)

And Obama has already seen and approved (and now you can, too) the SOFA. At least, that's one explanation for a sudden but quiet switch last week from a campaign-era demand that the U.S. Congress "must approve" it to a simple acknowledgment that Congress "should review" the agreement.

That's his third major shift in Iraq policy, by the way. The first was 'clarifying' that "immediately begin withdrawal/16 months" bit last July, the second was quietly dropping the call to eliminate "security contractors" (probably in light of reality) - and I give him much credit for those choices, too.

Many question marks and assumptions remain concerning Gates (will he?) and the SOFA (will they?) and other issues (Provincial elections?). As those are answered, clarified or eliminated, we'll keep looking ahead to what's next for Iraq...

*****

Wait - a bonus history trivia bit: Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War during the Civil War under Republican President Lincoln, was a Democrat.

SOFA Text?

Actually, McClatchy calls it an "unofficial translation from the Arabic".

There are some bits that are more interesting than others ("Iraqi airspace control and monitoring will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities immediately as this agreement becomes valid") but two points that have gotten the most discussion (and generated the most speculation) among those not involved in the negotiations are troop withdrawal and legal jurisdiction for U.S. troops and civilians. More on that jurisdiction later. From a quick glance: troops off duty and (not or) off post will be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction - but troops are never both.)

As for the withdrawal part, here's Article 24:

Article 24

Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq

Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:

All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.

One might wonder why this "All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province." Is immediately followed by this: "The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009." If the second phrase is taken at face value, the first is practically moot.

We'll see soon enough, I'm sure. What's certain is that President Obama's "16 months" must begin no later than two years from next September. In the meantime, let's look at Article 27:

Article 27

Deterrence Security Dangers

In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:

When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.

Both parties agree to continue their strong cooperation to strengthen and maintain the military, security and democratic political institutions in Iraq in accordance with what they agree upon, cooperation, supplying and arming the Iraqi Security Forces for the prevention of local and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon the request of the Iraqi government.

Which (among other things) basically means that if the Iraqis ask and we agree, we can leave troops in (or move troops into) Iraq for purposes of training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorism and outlaw groups, or for (internal or external) threat deterrence - to include threats to political stability, Iraq's democratic federal constitutional system, elected establishment, etc. etc.

Assuming that McClatchy has provided an accurate translation (and honestly, the last paragraph quoted above makes no sense to me whatsoever) of the final version of the SOFA, and that it is approved by Iraq's parliament (perhaps today), then McClatchy's own analysis of the agreement is flawed:

President-elect Barack Obama's campaign plan to leave a residual force of some 30,000 American troops in Iraq would be impossible under the pact.

But kudos to them for acknowledging that often-"overlooked" minor detail of his plan.

And speaking of overlooked, don't overlook this: "The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime."

Any questions?

Not just the "Air Farce" (Continued)

Our Air Force has now been heavily engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq since Day One in both areas of operations. As I mentioned here, while we don’t see or hear much about our Air Force activity, there's a lot going on behind the scenes.

In my previous post I highlighted the Pararescuemen (the Air Force's Special-Ops team), and Combat Weathermen and the dangers they face. Now let's talk about the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Teams:

Airmen from all walks of life in the Explosive Ordnance Disposal community answered the call when the Army asked for help in the joint effort against IEDs, thus again ensuring Air Force boots were on the ground and in the fight.

"Our primary (tactical control) mission (with) the Army is to clear IEDs, whether it's roadside bombs on supply routes targeting Coalition Forces or in the city targeting civilians," said Senior Master Sgt. Al Schneider, 506th EOD flight superintendent. "We also do post-blast analysis, collect (evidence) and come up with ways to counter (insurgent tactics)."

AF Team Member Laurie has a great post highlighting Staff Sgt. Matt Slaydon, an EOD technician, and his recovery from injuries suffered during his 3rd deployment. The improvised explosive device that blew up just a couple of feet from his face unmercifully claimed his left arm and left eye. It cost him his eyesight in his right eye as well, rendering him completely and permanently blind.

And of course we can't forget about the TAC-P guys (Tactical Air Control Party).

USAF Valour-IT team member Buck from Exile in Portales profiles the TAC-Ps here. TAC-P's are Air Force specialists that are assigned to Army combat maneuver units around the world. Tactical Air Control Parties provide numerous critical functions on the modern battlefield; from advising ground forces on aircraft employment and capabilities and coordinating and controlling aerospace operations, to participating in battle planning.

TACPs live, train, and deploy with the US Army units. When deployed, the TACPs live under austere field conditions, and are responsible for the coordination, de-confliction, and execution of all USAF attack aircraft. Qualified individuals, serving as Terminal Attack Controllers (ETACs), provide final attack control to the pilots while the fighters are inbound to the target. The ETAC is responsible for ensuring that the pilot identifies and attacks the correct target while minimizing the risk to friendly ground forces. During peacetime, training is the major focus. This training can take the form of common skills testing (mission readiness), various weapons qualifications, chemical warfare and combat first aid training.

Need some inspiration? Meet TSgt Israel Del Toro (Video at link). Staff Sgt. Israel Del Toro, who I mentioned in this post is a TAC-P.

A more recent video here

Honor these men who deserve to be recognized as the heroes they are.

GO AIR FORCE!!!

Along with other team members mentioned, I also want to thank team member One Happy Dog Speaks for keeping up the fight. If any other team members have posted on Valour-it send me the link.

My adaptive version of the Soldiers Angel Motto:

May no soldier go unloved. May no soldier walk alone. May no soldier be forgotten, Until Even when they all come home.

Done Deal?

Gates to stay at Defense? If this is true, it's the second fulfilled prophesy.

(The first was noted here and here.)

More Mansoor

10 Questions for Colonel Peter Mansoor, USA (Ret.)
COL (Ret.) Pete Mansoor is currently the Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair in Military History at The Ohio State University. COL Mansoor retired this past summer after more than 26 years in the United States Army. Most recently, he served as Executive Officer to General David Petraeus, then Commander MNF-I. Prior to holding that position, COL Mansoor served on a Council of Colonels that advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a new strategy for Iraq and was the founding director of the US Army/USMC Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, KS, where his team assisted in the final revision process of Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24.

The questions (and answers) here.

And more on Mosul

All right, this is more the sort of report I was wanting to see:

MOSUL, IRAQ: Kiowa scout helicopters buzzed over the column of American and Iraqi troops, as they often do here in Mosul, hoping to deter insurgents from attacking. Iraqis in the blue camouflage of the National Police walked at the head of the column, while Americans kept to the center and rear, hovering protectively around the senior officer they were escorting.

Major General Mark Hertling, the commander of American forces in northern Iraq, had just walked about three miles through the heart of western Mosul, accompanied by a small detachment of soldiers and the commander of the unit responsible for the area, the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Headquartered in Tikrit, Hertling’s 1st Armored Division keeps a forward element in Mosul under Brigadier General Raymond Thomas. But Hertling himself comes to the city, the most violent not only in his sector but across Iraq, often.

Three times during the patrol, gunshots rang out from somewhere off to the right, ...

Of course, that's from the Long War Journal, so no surprise they got it right.

(And here's an earlier report from the same source.)

More on Mosul

A must-read on Mosul and Mansfield, Massachusetts, and Marines.

Therein you'll find the answer to this: "Thirty jarheads in an eight-hour firefight with 250 Taliban, guess who wins."

From which, this spoiler:

"I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

Valour - IT Air Force Spirit

[This is a revised post from last year]

Ok nugget, kick the tires, light the fires, select Zone 5, tag the bogey but don’t get in a furball. Don’t boresight, check six, bingo to Mom — Got it?

Air Force needs to get hands on throttle , and get their birds in the air. This is starting to turn into a Charlie Foxtrot! If it weren't for the Coast Guard, we'd be in last place. This is no time for complacency.

Maybe a little team spirit is in order.

Via email from a USAF Cadets on exchange at West Point

Now that's the spirit.

As you can see here, Army is definitely the team to beat, they've got quite a lead. Navy isn't far behind, and the Marines seems to be staying afloat but as you can see the Air Force hasn't even got off the ground. And the poor Coast Guard seem to be dead in the water.

Need some inspiration? Meet TSgt Israel Del Toro - (VIDEO)

A more recent video here

His Air Force spirit has not wavered and he has become an advocate for other burn victims like himself. Read more about Del Toro below the fold.

GO AIR FORCE!!!

Sgt. Israel Del Toro continues talking to Airmen about his experiences in Afghanistan even as he struggles to recover from burns he received in combat.

The tactical air controller is fighting to stay in uniform so he can continue serving his country. The sergeant suffered severe burns over 80 percent of his body while on a combat patrol in December 2005.

After an improvised explosive device nearly killed him, it was three months before he had his next memory -- waking up at San Antonio's Brooke Army Medical Center. Burns and scars covered his body.

He awoke in intensive care in the burn treatment unit of Brooke Army medical Center in San Antonio. Burns covered 80 percent of his body. His wife was there and he wanted to hug her, but Carman was only able to squeeze a toe. She told him president Bush had been there to see him. Dressed in medical gloves and booties, stayed with him for about twenty minutes, thanking him for his valor. Israel remembered none of it.

"I could have been bitter and depressed," the sergeant said. "And at times I was. I mean, who wouldn't be?" But he vowed not to give up. He wanted to get better for his family and to get back into uniform. It took him until June 2006 to earn a release from the medical center, but that was nearly eight months earlier than doctors predicted.

Since then, Sergeant Del Toro has been touring Air Force bases, speaking to Airmen about the importance of being prepared for deployments. And he talks to them about being responsible Airmen and noncommissioned officers. He even took part in a panel that focused on what type of combat award the Air Force should institute.

Sergeant Del Toro's recovery has not been easy, but his drive to be with his family and to get back into the Air Force has made it faster.

His recovery is beating all of the odds and medical professionals and physical trainers are amazed at the pace And extent of his recovery. He lost his face, one hand and most of the fingers of the other hand. His vision in both eyes has been weakened.

He loves the Air Force and wants to continue his fifteen-year career with the Air Force. He is working desperately toward that goal.

Sgt. Toro Express his thoughts here:

“I’m not very PC [politically correct],” Del Toro explained. And, considering what he has gone through, he deserves wide latitude. Del Toro doesn’t have much patience for opponents of the war. “We always hear these guys, like Spike Lee, going ‘blah, blah, blah’ about the war. But none of them ever came to see me. President George Bush came to see me, though. And he spent 20 minutes in the room with me in 98 degree heat,” Del Toro said. The burn unit at Brooke Army Medical Center is kept at 98 degrees.

<...>

“A lot of times, the media focuses on guys who passed away,” Del Toro said. “We [who sustained severe injuries] get passed over to the side. We’re trying to have a life. Look, this sucks,” Del Toro said explaining how he felt about his situation.

<...>

Del Toro wants to remain in the Air Force on active duty. He said he truly loves his job. If he cannot recover well enough to go back to duty, he hopes to serve the Air Force in civil service.

In the meantime, Del Toro is taking life one day at a time and approaches his therapy and recovery with a very positive attitude that helped him excel in sports and his profession before his injuries.

Del Toro concludes by quoting Lou Gehrig: “I might have had a tough break, but I have an awful lot to live for.” He added, “And I am honored to have worked with the finest people in the World.”

In his honor...

GO AIR FORCE!!!

UPDATES ON DEL TORO

Soldiers' Angels is a non-profit (point out tax deduction, matching funds), and Valour-IT has ZERO overhead. IRS proof: http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=irs-non-profit-status
Regardless on team chosen, it all goes in the same "pot,".
Though things are looking up in Iraq, the need amongst the wounded is still great (about 30 laptops a month)

Mosul

So last week I wished for reports from Mosul, and this week I find

One:

MOSUL, IRAQ — With Iraqi Christians a threatened and dwindling minority, U.S. forces are safeguarding a 1,400-year-old monastery — Iraq's most ancient — for a time when peace, reconciliation and archaeological detective work can occur.

St. Elijah's Monastery, with its main fortress-like structure looming atop a barren hillside, sits inside a sprawling U.S. military base.

Its bloody history makes clear why the monastery needs protection. In 2003, it was damaged during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. About 250 years earlier, it was nearly leveled by a Persian ruler who ordered its monks slain.

Below the thick-walled compound lies the embattled city of Mosul, dotted with mosques but also churches. The city, Iraq's third largest, has seen an exodus of Christians reportedly sparked by killings and intimidation from Islamic militants.

And two:

While parts of Mosul appear normal -- men dine outdoors at a kebab restaurant, shoppers browse for fruit and vegetables at a market and children playfully stroll home from school -- a few miles away, multistory buildings lie in ruins, the streets are empty and most stores are shuttered, their twisted metal facades riddled with bullet holes.

But the battle in Mosul, a city of 1.8 million, is not just against Al Qaeda and other extremists who continue to lay deadly mines and carry out car bombings. It also is a conflict among the nation's religious and ethnic groups for dominance as provincial elections, scheduled for January, approach.

So this week I'm wishing for a new car.

Thanksgiving Decor

The Mrs has decorated the site for Thanksgiving. If you're viewing this from the main page, you'll see the cornucopia topping her side of the blog . She tells me it represents the cornucopia of milblog links found in the Dawn Patrol. She didn't explain the significance of the graphic here on my side.

Meanwhile, on the individual entries (reachable by clicking any entry title) the full holiday logo. My point in mentioning this? I just want to give her a much deserved hat tip for making this place look festive.

Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag

This movie is mis-named; it's about a lot more than fighter pilots. There's some serious all-around USAF badassery below.

I urge all to watch the whole (48 minute) thing for a fantastic overview of what your USAF does (with some incredible, made-for-IMAX camera work), but if you just want to see stuff blow up skip to about the 40-minute mark and enjoy.

And if you doubleclick the video above you'll find yourself at the source, where you can select a high-res and/or full screen option.

SOFA Talk

Abu M, talking SOFA, points to John Nagl talking SOFA.

Meanwhile, according to this story, a vote on final approval of the SOFA by Iraq's parliament is scheduled for Wednesday.

Hey, assuming it passes, one could make a supportable argument for Wednesday as "V.I. Day".

Victory in Iraq Day

"You won't see my name on the list."

I think John is right in his "years away" measure as applied to a fully functioning Democracy, etc etc. I think I'm right (and proven so by subsequent events) in my assessment of military victory over a year ago. As much as I appreciate the "Victory Day" sentiments, this means that by any reasonable definition they are very late or very early.

Which begs the question: What would be the right day?

USAF VALOUR-IT BABY

And if you aren't familiar with Valour-IT, start here.

Michael Totten...

...arrives in Baghdad (and posts some familiar looking pictures).

Iraq Interpreters Unmasked

Good response to a bad idea:

Thirteen members of Congress and an association of interpreters this week urged the Pentagon to rescind a policy that prohibits interpreters who work with U.S. troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to conceal their identity.

Yes - it's safer in Iraq. But this seems like something the interpreters could individually decide for themselves.

I mean, if it's that safe the troops can quit wearing armor in the streets, too - right?

Welcome to the Thinking Man's Blog

So I plug the Mudville url into this site that analyzes blogs and get this result:

INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Which sounds about right, except I'm a bit more understanding of people's feelings than what that last bit indicates. (And if you disagree, you can go #&%* yourself.)

Also, even with the Mrs co-blogging here, we are more manly than most. (But is she raising or lowering my score?)

Update: Hey, Gateway enjoys "adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters." Pretty unusual for a girl.

de Tocqueville Nods From on High

Don't try to figure out my title, just go read. (And am I the last to discover there were French Milbloggers? Merde...)

Gitmo gets more News (and more)

McClatchy: "Prison camp staff will soon start offering art and geology classes to long-held war-on-terrorism detainees. English is now being taught as military jailers tinker with how to distract captured jihadists."

In other news, they'll be getting news, too:

Copies of Al Ahram newspaper will soon circulate in Camps 5 and 6, if the camps' Egyptian-born librarian, Mohammed al Abdel Aal, makes good on his plan.

It would serve as an alternative to what commanders call the DNN -- Detainee News Network -- in which the captives pass between the cells whatever tidbits they get from their lawyers and guards.

On Election Night, says Zak, the results swept through the camps so swiftly the captives were chanting ``Obama, Obama, Obama.''

They'll wake up January 21st in Gitmo, perhaps further strengthening an imaginary psychic bond with those Obama voters who wake up January 21st in their mother's basements.

For others, the days of chanting are over.

A British militant who was a liaison to Al Qaeda and was a main suspect in the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners in 2006 was killed Saturday in a missile strike by an American aircraft in northern Pakistan, senior Pakistani and American officials said.

The militant, Rashid Rauf, was among the five people killed in the attack by a remotely piloted aircraft in North Waziristan, close to the Afghan border, the officials said. He is perhaps the best-known of the figures killed in an American airstrike campaign there that has intensified since August and has caused increased strains between the United States and Pakistan.

In August 2006, Mr. Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent, was detained in Pakistan, leading to the arrest of 25 suspects in Britain in connection with what prosecutors said was a plot to destroy seven airliners headed for the United States and Canada. This September, a British jury convicted three of eight defendants of conspiracy to commit murder, failing to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of using beverage bottles filled with liquid explosives to blow up the aircraft.

The Pakistani government doesn't seem too unhappy about this...

Pakistani officials confirmed on Saturday that Mr. Rauf was the main target of the American missile strike, with Abu Zubair al-Masri, an operative of Al Qaeda. “Rashid Rauf and al-Masri were the targets and have apparently been killed in the missile strike,” a senior government official said.

In Washington, an American official confirmed the death of Mr. Rauf. “There are good reasons to believe, as the Pakistanis have said, that this major terrorist is gone,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Leaving Iraq

A quick how-to from Peter Mansoor.

Update: General Odierno has some thoughts on that topic, too.

Obama fans are especially encouraged to follow those links. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that this is exactly what he was talking about all along.

Victory in Iraq

...a contrarian view.

Warrior Movies

Results from the Best Modern Warrior Movie? poll:

Band of Brothers 31% 86

We Were Soldiers 21% 58

Blackhawk Down 12% 32

The Deuce Four Movie
Bruce Willis Never Made 11% 30

Saving Private Ryan 8% 23

300 8% 21

Lord of the Rings 5% 14

Gladiator 2% 6

Generation Kill 1% 4

The Last Samurai 1% 3

I'd say Band of Brothers is a clear favorite. In my opinion, it's in a class all its own. Unfair advantage: no two-hour movie can compete with miniseries done right - and Band of Brothers defines that.

Generation Kill, on the other hand, is near the bottom. I confess I haven't seen it, but that's because I'm not an HBO subscriber and the DVD hasn't been released. I have read the book (the latest edition is now available as a bargain book at Amazon - if you've read an earlier edition, click through and read the new afterword in this version that updates the stories of many of the Marines. The book was a fair account of men at war, I'm not sure if the movie version remained true to that or if not enough people have seen it or if its a good movie that doesn't quite top the others in the list. It's one of two I haven't seen, more on the second shortly.

I have seen The Last Samurai. I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, and I didn't expect much from this, but it far exceeded my expectations. Based on poll results, this could be an "overlooked gem" among warrior movies. If you've never seen it, give it a try. (You can even rent it online for 2.99)

As for that other movie I haven't seen, it's the one you haven't seen either: The Deuce Four Movie Bruce Willis Never Made. Throughout the life of the poll it was in a neck-and-neck battle for third place.

I wrote about that movie that never was from Iraq in the summer of 2007, a time when

Encouraged by widespread opposition to the conflict in Iraq, Hollywood filmmakers are preparing to unleash an unprecedented wave of war films on moviegoers. In a notable break with the past — when antiwar films were released several years after the conflict in question — a whole new genre has been created even while American troops remain on the front lines of the war on terror.

...all of which failed miserably at the box office, proving (in the words of Hollywood's preeminent PR flaks) Americans didn't want to see movies about Iraq.

Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys!

Mudville Night at the Movies - tonight's feature presentation: Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys!

A comedy break, with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward:

It seemed like it was going to be a boring town meeting that evening in Putnam's Landing - the main topic: garbage disposal...

Woman speaker: We can acquire the perfect location for this plant - the old Yarborough property on shore road (applause)

Mr Crummit: Wait a minute! I own the old Yarborough property. And you're not gonna get it for a garbage plant...

Moderator: Mr Crummit, may I...

Mr Crummit: Now let's save some words Mr moderator. YOu're gonna ask me, 'why not?' and I'm gonna tell you I sold it. And you're gonna ask me 'who bought it?', and I'm gonna tell you who. The United States Army!

Grace Bannerman: What? Why is the Army moving into a peaceful little village like this?

Woman speaker: What about our daughters? Our daughters have been gently reared. What will happen to these pure innocent girls when the town is filled with... (gasp) Soldiers!

Moderator: Mr Crummit...

Mr Crummit: I knew you were gonna get back to me. Now you're gonna ask me 'what does the Army want with that property?' And I'm gonna tell you, word for word, verbatim - exactly what they told me: Nothing! Top Secret!

Crowd (erupts): Atom bomb! The whole town may blow up!

Moderator: Order please, must have order. His honor has the floor...

Mayor: Fellow citizens, as your mayor I can safely say that our town faces the greatest crisis since Samuel Putnam was scalped!

Crowd: Absolutely!

Mayor: Are we going to sit by and be calmly blasted to kingdom come?

Crowd: No!

Mayor: Let's forget all this silly talk about garbage and get on to the important problem we've got ahead of us! We've gotta keep this 'top secret' out of Putnam's Landing!

The full feature awaits below...

*****

Previous Mudville Movies:

Khartoum

The Longest Day

Get ready to change the name to CryVAW...

As the panties begin their inevitable twist:

Reporting from Washington -- Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

I believe they're in for some additional disappointment.

Those who weren't paying attention when the Senator clarified his views on Iraq in July ("Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months" was replaced by "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month -- which would remove all of them in 16 months.") probably didn't notice his latest subtle shift involving the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraq.

To fully understand the significance of the shift, you must know what a SOFA is. Basically, it's an agreement we have with most countries where we have troops stationed on a long-term basis (as Obama, perhaps to his supporters' dismay, desires for Iraq). The obvious exception: countries where we are at war. The agreement covers legal niceties such as criminal jurisdiction, basing, financial commitments, and other critical details necessary for continued presence of U.S. troops on foreign soil. The US has SOFAs with Germany, Japan, Korea, and several other nations where troops are stationed throughout the world. And for months (at least since early 2008), the U.S. has been developing a SOFA with Iraq in hopes of eliminating the requirement for the United Nations annual resolution authorizing our continued presence there.

Rumors about the content of that agreement throughout the months of negotiations caused Senator Obama to prominently include this statement as a key point in his Iraq policy: "Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress." That oversight can be assumed to to be desired as a way to ensure that any incoming president would not be tied to a treaty that didn't suit their own plans for Iraq.

But this week, the strict demands were quietly replaced with a "sort of maybe": "Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home."

Gone are "must" and "approve" - the new terms are "should" and "review". What could explain the lack of concern for congressional oversight? I can offer two likely reasons:

One - the president elect, having read the SOFA in its near-complete version (it lacks only that mandatory Iraqi parliamentary approval) has determined that it offers an acceptable framework for future US-Iraq relations

or

Two - the President-elect no longer cares what it says or what Congress thinks, he's going to do what he pleases with (or to) Iraq come hell or high water.

I believe option one is the more likely scenario. Perhaps I'm delusional in that regard (and certainly circumstances on the ground can change between now and January 20 or thereafter, especially since the document is not yet official) but I'm also inclined to believe that whatever the outcome, IVAW and the other folks quoted in that LA Times article are in for much greater disappointment than I am.

Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that ...Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

"I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he's going to assemble a team that's committed to that goal," Andrews said.

But Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, is expressing more concern: "There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

But assuming Iraq agrees to the SOFA, the only real remaining question is will the U.S. leave an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified amount of time, per the remaining unchanged portion of Obama's Iraq plan, or will all troops be removed, per unverified reports on the content of the SOFA.

And perhaps for the "peace activists", there's the question of Afghanistan. The drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq is ongoing, and one Brigade scheduled for Iraq later this year has already been re-programmed for Afghanistan. Obama has pledged that others so scheduled will follow. He's likewise promised to "kill bin Laden" and to make "crushing al Qaeda" our "biggest national security priority." However, unlike Iraq, any plan or policy for Afghanistan has never been included on the candidate's (or the President-elect's) web site(s).

Update: More from Jules Crittenden.

Guns and Butter

Glenn Reynolds on that topic in Forbes.

Read the whole thing for a good discussion. I'll offer a bit of a quibble on this line, however:

Truman fought in Korea and lost the next election. LBJ had to give up the White House over Vietnam. George H.W. Bush won in Iraq and enjoyed 90% approval ratings but lost the next election anyway.

There's an exception to that rule - F.D.R., whose (depression-ending) leadership through WWII didn't cost him much in the way of voter support. Of course, in those days the media were more inclined to support the Commander-in-Chief, too.

But that's something to think about given our current economic crisis (worst since the depression!), the number of global hot zones ("Gird your loins... mark my words... he will be tested...) and unrivaled media popularity of an incoming CinC.

The Two World War Movie

"As far I know, Barack Obama is a reader, hopefully we will have a president who reads history and hopefully is not condemned to repeat it."

Funny you should mention that...

We have fought two world wars, but the first one ended in 1918. The man in the video may make a fine President, but a history buff he is not. (Hopefully this hasn't crushed anyone's hope.)

Perhaps we can rely on an older, more experienced V.P. for history lessons...

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened."

...or perhaps not.

But perhaps all that's a bit depressing, so let's close with a song from the immortal Sam Cooke:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be...

Spring

Continuing a series begun here, in which General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and sent to Baghdad with instructions not to involve himself in political arguments back home.

From part one: This is the ideal; politicians engaged and aware of the issues they debate, hopefully achieving a consensus that meets the needs of the republic and reflects the will of a majority of informed Americans. But over the past two years the ideal was abandoned for the absurd as the reality gap between the war in Washington and the actual war in Iraq widened and Americans were informed by media with standing armies in Washington completely overwhelming a small corps of reporters in Iraq.

In this series we'll examine that "war in Washington" and the widening of that gap, in hopes of explaining to at least a few members of that public exactly why a war was won without their knowledge or consent.

*****

In March, 2007, General Petraeus gave his first press briefing from Baghdad. He updated the progress of "the surge" and also mentioned positive developments in Anbar Province that had begun before the troop increase:

Iraqi and coalition forces are steadily building their strength to support the operation in Baghdad. The last of nine Iraqi surge battalions and the second of five U.S. surge brigades have just entered Baghdad. This buildup will continue throughout the spring, with all U.S. and Iraqi forces dedicated to the mission in place by about early June.
<...>
Beyond Baghdad, moreover, a number of tribes in Anbar province have in recent months finally said, "enough," and begun to link arms against extremist operatives who have killed their sheikhs and sought to poison their young people's minds.

The General had already realized the significance of turning insurgent groups - and "neutral" Iraqis - into government supporters, and knew that while some could be recruited, others - especially groups filled by foreign fighters - could not. (For example, al Qaeda in Iraq.)

He def