"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.
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