Today is the eighty-second anniversary of D-Day, the Normandy landings in WWII that led to Western Europe’s liberation.

I wonder how many people under forty, either here or in Europe, now know or care what happened there. The dog barks and the caravan moves on.

The world we now live in seems so vastly different, including the relationship between the US and western Europe. But make no mistake about it; if threatened in a way that finally gets their attention, Europeans would be counting on us again. And although until a while ago I still thought that we would probably be up to the task, I now have my doubts. It would depend on the administration in charge. And we pretty much know our press would fail us.

About forty-eight years ago I visited Omaha Beach, site of the worst of the carnage. A quieter place than that beach and those huge cemeteries, with their lines of crosses set down as though with a ruler, you never did see.

But the scene was quite different back in 1944. The D-day invasion marked the beginning of the end for the Germans.

The weather was a huge factor, and the Allied commanders had to make the decision knowing that the forecast for the day was iffy and the window of opportunity small. For reasons of visibility and navigation (maximum amount of moonlight and deepest water), the invasion needed to occur during a time of full moon and spring tides, and all the invasion forces had already been assembled and were at the ready. To postpone would have been hugely expensive and frustrating, but to go ahead in bad weather would have been suicidal.

This is how bad the weather looked, how difficult the decision was, and how much we owe to the meteorologists, who:

…were challenged to accurately predict a highly unstable and severe weather pattern. As [Eisenhower] indicated in the message to Marshall, “The weather yesterday which was [the] original date selected was impossible all along the target coast.” Eisenhower therefore was forced to make his decision to proceed with a June 6 invasion in the predawn blackness of June 5, while horizontal sheets of rain and gale force winds shuddered through the tent camp.

The initially bad weather ended up being an advantage in other ways, because the Germans were not expecting the invasion to occur yet for that reason:

Some [German] troops stood down, and many senior officers were away for the weekend. General Erwin Rommel, for example, took a few days’ leave to celebrate his wife’s birthday, while dozens of division, regimental, and battalion commanders were away from their posts at war games.

In addition, there was Hitler’s personality and his reluctance to give autonomy to his military commanders:

Hitler reserved to himself the authority to move the divisions in OKW Reserve, or commit them to action. On 6 June, many Panzer division commanders were unable to move because Hitler had not given the necessary authorization, and his staff refused to wake him upon news of the invasion.

.

This didn’t mean that the beaches were not heavily fortified and manned, especially Omaha:

[The Germans] had large bunkers, sometimes intricate concrete ones containing machine guns and high caliber weapons. Their defense also integrated the cliffs and hills overlooking the beach. The defenses were all built and honed over a four year period.

The number of Allied casualties was enormous. Reading about it today makes one appreciate anew what these men faced, and how courageously they pressed on despite enormous difficulties. This is just a small sampler of what occurred on Omaha Beach at the outset; there was much more to come:

Despite these preparations, very little went according to plan. Ten landing craft were lost before they even reached the beach, swamped by the rough seas. Several other craft stayed afloat only because their passengers quickly bailed water with their helmets. Seasickness was also prevalent among the troops waiting offshore. On the 16th RCT front, the landing boats found themselves passing struggling men in life preservers, and on rafts, survivors of the DD tanks which had sunk. Navigation of the assault craft was made more difficult by the smoke and mist obscuring the landmarks they were to use in guiding themselves in, while a heavy current pushed them continually eastward.

As the boats approached within a few hundred yards of the shore, they came under increasingly heavy fire from automatic weapons and artillery. The force discovered only then the ineffectiveness of the pre-landing bombardment. Delayed by the weather, and attempting to avoid the landing craft as they ran in, the bombers had laid their ordnance too far inland, having no real effect on the coastal defenses.

These obstacles and unforeseen circumstances were extraordinarily costly in terms of the human sacrifice that occurred that day. Note that I use the word “obstacles and unforeseen circumstances” rather than “mistakes.” Today, if the same things had occurred (at least, while under the aegis of a Republican administration), they would be labeled unforgivable errors rather than the inevitable difficulties inherent in waging war, in which no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

Another historical footnote is the following passage from Eisenhower’s message to the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. It’s another sign of how times have changed; the word “crusade” has become verboten.

In his pocket, Eisenhower also kept another statement, one to activate in case the invasion failed. It read:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

The note was written in pencil on a simple piece of paper, and is housed in a special vault at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library & Museum in Abilene, Kansas, a bit of thought-provoking fodder for an alternate history that never occurred.

[NOTE: I’ve read that there’s a new movie out about Eisenhower and D-Day, entitled Pressure. Has anyone seen it?]

The post D-Day: 82 years after appeared first on The New Neo.

Platner claims that Susan Collins voted to send him to Iraq; he says that explicitly in the video at the link. He also says the US “destroyed” Iraq, but when I last checked, Iraq was still a functioning country and doing at least somewhat better than it was before the war. As for Afghanistan – which he also says the US “destroyed,” it’s about the same as it was before the war, with the Taliban in charge.

But about Collins:

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins made a mistake when she voted to “send him to Iraq.”

“We destroyed Iraq and we destroyed Afghanistan, and all the suffering, all the killing, all the dying, all the displacement — we, the United States, did that. And that I’m ashamed of.”

“The anger that I feel is for the people that sent me,” he said.

Sounds a bit John Kerry-esque, doesn’t he?

Collins replies:

“The fact is, that was Platner’s decision to serve,” Collins told The Maine Wire on Thursday, adding, “He was not drafted.”

Additionally, the GOP senator cited Platner’s decision to work for the security company Blackwater, which was investigated by the U.S. government over allegations that it violated international law.

He signed up after the war began, and he re-upped. It was entirely voluntary.

His reply? She made me do it anyway:

Now all these years later, instead of acknowledging that she was wrong, she’s decided that she’s going to blame all of us who — in our late teens and early twenties — signed up to serve our country,” he continued. “That somehow it’s our fault that she and establishment politicians like her, wanted to abuse our willingness to serve, to go send us off to fight in stupid wars that did nothing but make some people very, very rich at the expense of American taxpayer dollars.”

Some facts on Platner’s service – and recall that the Iraq War began in March of 2003:

Platner enlisted in the Marine Corps shortly after graduating from high school in 2003. He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served a total of eight years in the military, including three combat tours in Iraq, in areas including Ramadi and Fallujah. Asked why he served in the Iraq War after protesting it, Platner said, “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.”

After four years in the military, Platner enrolled at George Washington University, funded by the G.I. Bill. Shortly after starting school, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and served an additional tour of duty in the war in Afghanistan. He returned to Washington in 2011, resuming classes at GWU and working as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill. From 2011 to 2016 he alternated between living in DC and military deployments, before withdrawing from GWU and returning to Maine in 2016 for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and other military-related injuries.

In 2018, Platner returned to Kabul, Afghanistan, for about six months as a State Department security contractor with Constellis, where he provided diplomatic security to the US Ambassador to Afghanistan.

By 2016 Platner would have been 31-32 years old.

NOTE: Here’s one of my previous posts about Platner.

See also this post by Ace about Platner.

The post Graham Platner: Susan Collins made me do it! appeared first on The New Neo.

The attacking Ottoman Army, significantly outnumbered Constantinople’s defenders …

The fall of Constantinople and of the Byzantine Empire was a watershed moment of the Late Middle Ages, marking the effective end of the Roman Empire, a state which began in roughly 27 BC and had lasted nearly 1,500 years. For many modern historians, the fall of Constantinople marks the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. The city’s fall also stood as a turning point in military history. Since ancient times, cities and castles had depended upon ramparts and walls to repel invaders. The walls of Constantinople, especially the Theodosian walls, protected Constantinople from attack for 800 years and were noted as some of the most advanced defensive systems in the world at the time. However, these fortifications were overcome by Ottoman infantry with the support of gunpowder, specifically from cannons and bombards, heralding a change in siege warfare.

But I first learned about this as a child through a rather silly song, popular in 1953. I was exceedingly young, but popular music nevertheless still seeped down to me, and the song was very catchy:

“Istanbul (Not Constantinople)” is a 1953 novelty song, with lyrics by Jimmy Kennedy and music by Nat Simon. It was written on the 500th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. The lyrics humorously refer to the official renaming of the city of Constantinople to Istanbul. The song’s original release, performed by The Four Lads, was certified as a gold record.

The lyrics can be found here, and they treat the whole thing like a light joke. Back in 1953 it must have seemed that way to most of the Western world. But who’s laughing now? An excerpt:

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it’s Turkish delight on a moonlit night
(Oh) every gal in Constantinople
(Oh) lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
(Oh) so if you’ve a date in Constantinople
(Oh) she’ll be waiting in Istanbul …

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks’

Actually, it’s everybody’s business these days – and by “it” we’re not talking about Constantinople/Istanbul per se. We’re talking about the Muslim world versus the Christian world (and the Jews, of course). We’re talking about various kinds of conquest and not just the military kind – perhaps not even primarily the military kind. The siege involves the human mind, and it’s been going on far longer than two months. The main fronts are academia, the press, and politics.

NOTE: Here’s the original song:

The post “You can’t go back” – the fall of Constantinopole appeared first on The New Neo.

All it takes to be an antisemite these days is to question why we give Israel so much money.

Of course that’s not all it takes. In fact, it’s a question I’ve asked, too: why so much aid? But when I researched it, I found that the answer made perfect sense.

Before I give the answer, I’ll mention Keith’s second comment today on the subject, after various people responded negatively:

How to prove a point without really trying. Israel firsters are in the room. And your wrong ,we should not give any money to any country. If Israel can have free education and health care, they can pay their own way. ,,flame away

Now, if Keith had led with “we should not give any money to any country,” that would have been a different point and a different argument or discussion. That discussion could be on the purpose of foreign aid, whether it fulfills its purpose, and the merits and/or flaws of the financially isolationist approach (does this include no bases anywhere outside the US, for example?). But that would be switching the argument and is quite different from focusing on US aid to Israel. Plus, of course, one can favor foreign aid for Israel without being an “Israel Firster”: one can believe, for example, that giving aid to Israel is extremely helpful to the US itself.

Any discussion of actual dollar amounts without background about how the aid is given and what is done with it is to leave out almost everything important. So let’s fill in those blanks.

First, a very short summary version:

Next, a longer version. Some excerpts:

Israel is America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. The two nations are bound together not only by interests, but also by the deeply held values they share.

Israel provides a cost-effective alternative to stationing American troops in the region. …

Israel is a major economic and technological ally. Many American companies including Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Intel operate major research facilities in Israel, and Israel creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in America through trade, investment, and other cooperation. U.S. aid helps Israel defend itself so it can remain a valuable contributor to the American economy.

By 2028, Israel must spend 100% of American aid money on American defense contractors. This spending supports well over 20,000 jobs according to recent estimates.

Israel is talking about phasing out US military aid, so perhaps that 2028 benchmark won’t be reached and the amount of aid will be minuscule or zero. But Israel already gives back a great deal of its aid anyway. Here’s how it works:

In the 2000s, as Israel became more economically self-sufficient, economic aid has dropped off to zero in recent years. Military assistance, meanwhile, has steadily risen to levels of typically over $4 billion annually over the past year.

Most U.S. security assistance to Israel falls under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program.

Israel is a recipient of U.S. FMF, which functions as a grant that a foreign country then must use to purchase weapons and other military platforms manufactured in the United States. …

While Israel uses FMF to make most arms purchases from the U.S., it often buys additional defense articles using its own funds. As of April 2025 Israel had over 750 active FMS cases, valued at $39.2 billion. …

The United States has recognized Israel as a major non-NATO ally since 1987, and bilateral defense cooperation also includes an array of strategic agreements, joint research and development programs, intelligence sharing, and frequent combined training exercises. …

The emphasis on maintaining Israel’s QME [Qualitative Military Edge] is an acknowledgment that—notwithstanding its impressive military and technological capabilities—Israel has several strategic disadvantages vis-à-vis its adversaries, including its limited size and manpower.

Israel does more than give back its aid for the purpose of buying US armaments – which means the money flows back to the US – and it does more than fight US enemies in the Middle East (terrorist entities controlled by Iran, for the most part). Israel also develops weapons and shares these gains with the US:

From tank protection systems to artificial intelligence-powered warfare solutions, Israeli defense firms and research institutions have consistently delivered cutting-edge innovations that have found their way into the American military. Many of these technologies were born out of Israel’s unique security challenges and its need for rapid innovation in urban and asymmetric warfare. The US military has adopted many of Israel’s systems and integrated them into combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and various counterterrorism operations worldwide.

While Israeli innovations have shaped military doctrine and force structures, they have also had a direct impact on individual warfighters, as seen in battlefield medical advancements. The Emergency Bandage—a simple yet highly effective hemorrhage control dressing developed by an Israeli military medic—has saved countless American lives. First introduced in the 1990s, the bandage features a built-in pressure applicator that allows soldiers to treat severe wounds with one hand. …

The Israeli military’s adaptation of the D9 bulldozer into a heavily armored combat bulldozer offered a battlefield-tested model that directly influenced American operations in Iraq. …

Israeli advancements in force protection have dramatically increased the survivability of armored platforms in combat. The Trophy Active Protection System (APS) is one of the most significant Israeli contributions to armored warfare. …

Recognizing the increasing threat of modern anti-tank weapons, the US Army integrated the Trophy APS onto M1 Abrams main battle tanks beginning in 2018. …

Furthermore, as unmanned aerial threats evolve, the Trophy APS is now being adapted to counter drone-based attacks. …

Having faced IED threats for years from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations, Israel’s counter-IED capability far exceeded that of the United States. Israel shared these technologies with the United States, providing it with vehicle-mounted microwave devices called Dragon Spike and Dragon Spike II to test in Iraq and Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. These devices were not a silver bullet to the IED problem, but they did help jump-start the United States’ counter-IED efforts.

I’ve already quoted a lot from that site, so I’ll stop here because I believe I’ve made my point. But there’s plenty more at the link and I suggest you take a look. Suffice to say that I don’t think there’s a country on earth that helps the US more, militarily. I don’t think any other country is even close.

[ADDENDUM: And by the way, since Keith’s comments were originally on the Massie thread, I thought this would be a good place for a link to a post from Ace today on the topic of Massie’s “principles.”]

The post US aid to Israel appeared first on The New Neo.

The first is that yes, the guy is a leftist or at least left-leaning, based on earlier tweets he wrote and/or retweeted as a cardinal, which involve politics (see also this).

The second is in some way even more troubling – at least to me. The Pope seems to have gotten his scriptural context wrong. Watch this video, which explains it quite well I think. It’s not long, I’ve cued it up for a 3-and-1/2-minute segment that is the relevant part:

How could the Pope make such an error? Was he a “journalist” for the New York Times in his earlier life? No, not that and not much of anything else except growing up Catholic and answering an early calling to be a priest. The Pope’s quote was from Isaiah, a book of what Christians call the Old Testament and Jews call the Tanakh. There are differences between the two books that aren’t especially relevant to this discussion. But here’s the King James Version of the chapter, and I don’t see any way to interpret it as Pope Leo did.

Either Leo hasn’t really studied the text, or he’s distorting it to make an anti-Trump antiwar point. I’ll leave it at that.

The post Was the Pope correct about war and prayer, based on that Biblical verse? appeared first on The New Neo.

CENTCOM’s update stated, “More than 10,000 U.S. Sailors, Marines, and Airmen along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft are executing the mission to blockade ships entering and departing Iranian ports.” It proudly affirmed, “During the first 24 hours, no ships made it past the U.S. blockade and 6 merchant vessels complied with direction from U.S. forces to turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman.”

It seems to me the need for this action had been anticipated, because unless I’m mistaken the troops and ships have been more or less at the ready for a while and were nearby.

The post Day one of CENTCOM’s action at the Strait of Hormuz … appeared first on The New Neo.

I don’t expect popes to be cheerleaders in most wars. I expect them to talk about praying for peace and that sort of thing. But I was shocked when Pope Leo (the first American pope) said this the other day:

“Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.'”

I am certainly no historian of the Catholic Church, but has any other pope ever said anything remotely like this? As far as I know, Catholic priests are often chaplains to the military, and they lead soldiers in wartime in prayer and there is no assertion that God doesn’t hear the prayers of those soldiers. There is also Catholic Just War theory, and plenty of Biblical precedent:

The Old Testament contains numerous examples of divinely sanctioned warfare. In Exodus 15:3, God is described as “a man of war,” affirming that war, under certain conditions, is not inherently evil. Judges and kings of Israel often led battles under divine mandate, as seen in the campaigns of Joshua (cf. Joshua 6) and David (cf. 2 Kings 5:19). Judas Machabeus led a successful war for freedom against the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of antichrist. God’s people suffered many martyrs (see 2 Machabees 6 & 7) but they also had angels fighting on their side (see 2 Machabees 3:24-26; 5:2-4). …

Church history is littered with saints who also served as soldiers; notable among them are as St. Sebastian, St. George, Bl. Charlemagne, St. Ferdinand III, and most famously, St. Joan of Arc.

These scriptural passages and saintly exemplars illustrate a foundational principle: War is not intrinsically immoral, but its morality depends on context, authority, and intention.

The passage to which Pope Leo seems to be referring is in Isaiah and here’s the context:

Dr. Marcus Peter writes that the Holy Father “might have been evoking Isaiah 1:15” when he said those words. The pastor of my church, in his homily on Palm Sunday, offered the same opinion.

But Isaiah did not say that God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

In Isaiah Chapter One, the prophet is chastising Israel. He says Israel has become a “Sinful nation, people laden with wickedness, evil offspring, corrupt children!” (1:4). Then he says, “When you spread out your hands, I will close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!” (1:15).

Dr. Peter notes that the language in the official Vatican text is clear. “The Italian original reads, “non ascolta la preghiera di chi fa la guerra,” which closely means that God does not hear the prayer of those who make or wage war.”

Isaiah is saying, however, that God does not hear the prayers of the wicked, the evil, or the corrupt. And not everyone who wages war is evil, wicked or corrupt. I don’t think George Washington, our Founding Fathers, or Abraham Lincoln were evil, wicked or corrupt. And President Roosevelt cannot be considered evil or wicked for declaring war on a country that attacked the U.S. and on another country that was out to conquer the world.

The Pope also criticized Trump’s “a whole civilization will die” threat, either not understanding it (as I wrote about here) or perhaps considering words as awful as deeds. Nor has Pope Leo (and I include when he was Cardinal Prevost) ever had a word to say about Iran’s constant “Death to America” threats, over the near-half-century of the mullahtocracy’s existence. At least, I couldn’t find any such statement by him.

So it’s unsurprising that Trump took issue with what the Pope said, although I actually think this is one of those times when Trump would have done better to have ignored it.

The Pope also said he’s not afraid of Trump. The statement implies that this involves some sort of bravery. But of course Trump isn’t going to send out a hit man to harm the Pope. Then again, Pope Leo might well be afraid of Iran, or Muslim terrorists. After all, look at what happened to Pope John Paul II:

In 1979, The New York Times reported that Agca, whom it called “the self-confessed killer of an Istanbul newspaperman” … had described the Pope [John Paul II] as “the masked leader of the crusades” and threatened to shoot him if he did not cancel his planned visit to Turkey, which went ahead in late November 1979. The paper also said (on 28 November 1979) that the killing would be in revenge for the then still ongoing attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, which had begun on 20 November, and which he blamed on the United States or Israel.

It’s a long and very convoluted story; you can find it at the link if you’re interested. It was a conspiracy, but only Agca fired and severely injured the Pope, who nevertheless later forgave him.

Back to the present – I’ve also seen quite a bit of talk in the comment sections of blogs on the right from people saying that of course it was David Axelrod’s visit that sparked Pope Leo’s comments critical of Trump. Some of them add that Axelrod is Jewish, which makes this one of those “the Jews are behind it” charges. But I doubt very much that the Pope is motivated by Axelrod or by Jews, whatever online commenters may think.

I don’t know what Pope Leo and David Axelrod discussed when they met, but they’re both from Chicago and they seem to share political worldviews anyway. My guess is that at least a portion of their discussion may have had something to do with Axelrod’s daughter. I’m speaking of this:

[Axelrod’s] first child, a daughter … was diagnosed with epilepsy at seven months of age. Axelrod describes Lauren as having had brutal seizures, requiring a constantly changing regimen of medications for some time. This left her developmentally disabled, but nevertheless mainstreamed in school. For a few years after high school, the family struggled to find programs that would keep her happy and fulfilled, but were able to place her in Misericordia, a large dormitory-style group home in 2002, where she leads an active life. As of 2021, Axelrod advocates for a flexible, mixed approach to group homes that support environments for people like his daughter, in contrast to the common approach of exclusively moving toward smaller group homes.

And of Misericordia:

Misericordia Home is a not-for-profit developmental home for persons with mild to profound developmental disabilities in Chicago, Illinois. It is run by the Sisters of Mercy and operated under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Axelrod’s daughter is now in her mid-forties and she’s been in that Catholic-run home for most of her adult life. Maybe Axelrod wanted to thank Pope Leo. Not everything is about politics.

The post The Pope versus Trump; Trump versus the Pope appeared first on The New Neo.

ADDENDUM: Another excellent take:

The post More details of the airman rescue in Iran appeared first on The New Neo.

US forces have successfully rescued and extracted the missing crew member of an American fighter jet that was shot down over Iran following “one of the most daring search-and-rescue operations” in the country’s history, President Trump announced early Sunday.

“WE GOT HIM! My fellow Americans, over the past several hours, the United States Military pulled off one of the most daring Search and Rescue Operations in U.S. History, for one of our incredible Crew Member Officers, who also happens to be a highly respected Colonel, and who I am thrilled to let you know is now SAFE and SOUND!” Trump posted on Truth Social just after midnight.

The Air Force officer — a weapons specialist who has not yet been publicly identified — was one of two aboard an F-15E Strike Eagle shot down on Friday. Both had ejected over southwestern Iran, triggering a massive high-risk rescue mission.

The weapons officer was injured during the ejection, but was still able to walk, a US official told Axios.

“He sustained injuries, but he will be just fine,” Trump said.

The crew member was recovered in a dangerous Saturday night operation following intense fighting near the crash site, as US forces carried out a complex operation deep inside Iranian territory.

We will probably never know every detail. But it sounds as though he was able to get to high ground and set off a signal to US forces that told them where he was, and that they knew that information for nearly 24 hours. You can bet the Iranian forces were pursuing him with extreme zeal, because capturing and parading him would have been the fulfillment of a dream for them. Don’t forget that the mullahtocracy began with a bunch of US hostages; anyone of “a certain age” (as I am and so many readers here are) probably recalls it vividly.

I was tremendously worried that the Iranians would find him before we did, but that didn’t happen although there were apparently heated firefights involved, including the following:

A senior military official told the outlet that the mission was one of the most challenging and complex in the history of US special operations.

The airman evaded capture for up to a day in mountainous terrain, using survival training to move away from the wreckage and hide on elevated ground while signaling for rescue. He had little more than a pistol as Iranian forces scoured the area and mobilized civilians to hunt him down, the Times reported.

“This brave Warrior was behind enemy lines in the treacherous mountains of Iran, being hunted down by our enemies, who were getting closer and closer by the hour, but was never truly alone because his Commander in Chief, Secretary of War, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and fellow Warfighters were monitoring his location 24 hours a day, and diligently planning for his rescue,” Trump added.

The airman and the rescue team safely evacuated Iran and flew to Kuwait, where the injured airman could be treated, according to the Times.

The operation unfolded amid reported airstrikes and clashes in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, where local officials said multiple people were killed or wounded, as US special operations forces and Air Force pararescue teams engaged in a fierce firefight with Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Basij fighters searching for the downed crew member.

Searching frantically but unsuccessfully, something which probably disappoints our own MSM and Democrats.

Sometimes life imitates movies, and this one has a happy ending. Would that the whole war will have a happy ending

The post Wonderful news – the missing airman has been rescued by US forces appeared first on The New Neo.

And today we have this difficult news:

An American pilot was rescued in a daring operation by US special forces Friday after Iran shot down an F-15E fighter jet — and placed a bounty on the crew.

A second fighter pilot was still missing.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed “newly developed and advanced air defenses” had downed the jet, which was “completely destroyed and crashed,” Tehran’s Press TV reported.

Since nothing the Iranian press says can be trusted at face value, there’s no reason to imagine this was the result of newly developed or advanced air defenses. If indeed the plane was shot down rather than had some mechanical problem – and I tend to think it was shot down, since the US isn’t denying it (or officially confirming it yet, as far as I can tell). The mechanism probably was either some local air defense system that had remained intact, or had been repaired, or something newly supplied from Russia that actually worked and constituted a surprise.

Trump’s enemies are very happy about this because they can use it to bolster their “the war has failed!” narrative, although there’s no logic to it. Anyone who thought thousands upon thousands of air strikes could occur without one or more planes being shot down (or coming down through mechanical failure) is either tremendously naive or disingenuous or both.

The demand is for no war ever – or if that fails, a perfect war. Even if the current regime were to surrender, I can practically guarantee that the Trump-haters (mostly on the left but not solely on the left) would give him no credit and would say the war was still a failure. They’d find a way and they’d find a reason.

One of the stupidest things they demand is the need to know exactly how long the war will last, even at its outset. Or the need to get a guarantee that everything will work out. Or they pretend that they haven’t been given reasons for the war. They also ignore the differences between the people of Iraq during that war and the Iranian people during this one. In addition, they act as though regime change was the main goal in Iran, and that if it doesn’t happen then the whole endeavor is a failure – when the idea was always that regime change would be an excellent side effect but that destroying the regime’s weapons and leadership would be a vast improvement on the non-war alternatives that have long been the status quo.

But they ignore all that and compare this war to some Platonic perfect war that does not exist in the real world. Or they say, “Of course, it’s a terrible regime that needed to end, but ….” offering no way to have made it end.

Trump is portrayed as stupid and blundering and ill-meaning, because that’s the only Trump that exists in their minds.

What would they have accepted as the proper provocation for a war? For the left, I suppose the answer might be “anything if a Democrat decided on it,” but “nothing” for Trump. And what of the isolationist right? What would they accept? Maybe an actual nuclear attack on the US or a full-scale military invasion by some foreign power? Maybe. Maybe even those things wouldn’t be enough. They might be labeled a false flag, as 9/11 was labeled by 9/11 Truthers who sprang up shortly after that horrific event. Or perhaps this sort of thing:

Tucker Carlson believes Pearl Harbor was a false flag orchestrated by Roosevelt to drag America into WWII. His evidence is a Senate inquiry that actually concluded the exact opposite – that there was zero evidence of foreknowledge of the attack.

He also conveniently leaves out… pic.twitter.com/Kc5QiFE22u

— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) April 2, 2026

How long ago did I first start hearing that about FDR and Pearl Harbor? I can’t recall, but it was many decades ago. Even World War II was hardly a perfect war, so that must be discredited as well – a war against one of the most evil enemies in history. And yes, the casualties were very high.

Thing is, once you start feeling that the government has lied to you – which it certainly has at times – some people will slip into the convention that practically everything the government says is a lie – and in particular is a lie if doubting it feeds into their already-existent belief system. Plenty of people have lost faith in anything government says and does, and have found people to blame for that.

Another factor in all of this is the protected nature of most Americans over the years. The draft ended over fifty years ago, and so with an all-volunteer military, most people don’t have to serve in the military and lack any military knowledge of the type that might be learned by serving. I’m not asking to bring the draft back. But an abysmal level of ignorance, and pundits preying on that ignorance, is one of the consequences of the end of the draft.

The post Only a perfect war will do – and maybe not even that, if it’s waged by Trump appeared first on The New Neo.