Eyes were on Suleimani
One aspect of Suleimani’s killing is what it says about the extent of our intelligence about the Iranians’ coming and goings. Someone – or some technology – had to have had “eyes” on Suleimani and been able to pinpoint his movements with great precision in order for this particular mission to have succeeded despite whatever security the Iranians felt they had in place. He was a very vital asset, both symbolically and in terms of his activities.
Or maybe Suleimani’s security lay mostly in the fact that he felt no one on the other side had the cojones to attack him, so he could move about and function with impunity. So far, no one had, despite knowing who he was, what he did, and probably where he was. But someone ultimately did decide to end Suleimani’s life, and that someone was Trump.
I believe that one of Trump’s advantages is that he is perceived as the proverbial loose cannon, unpredictable and perhaps even reckless. It may seem odd that I say it’s an advantage to be perceived that way – certainly, it isn’t always a plus – but it can give enemies pause when they feel they cannot say what a person will actually do and they perceive that they might be vulnerable to strong retaliation from that person. There is no question that the mullahs had no fear whatsoever of Obama, and most likely considered him a weakling and a dupe or perhaps even a witting or unwitting ally. They can have no such feelings about Trump.
All of this doesn’t mean that Suleimani can’t be replaced. In fact, he already has been replaced. But, as this article says [hat tip commenter “Barry Meislin”]:
…[W]hat’s really hard to win back is the image; to carve out another mystical figure that Soleimani earned himself after long, toiling decades in the making of and establishing a feared Iranian dominion over the Middle East.
The death of a man of such caliber with worldwide connections and revered, nearly-prophetic aura is more resonant off the field than on it. The crushing blow dwells not in Iran’s loss of a wise and professional warlord but in the loss of magic; the vaporization of the myth that surrounded the regime in the presence of Hadji Qasem; the spoiling of the spell that he had long exercised upon his regional subordinate and the cold-blooded brutality with which he used to operate; the closing of his celestial adventure on earth and with it the Islamic Republic’s lucky charm.
I don’t know if that’s the perception. But it’s my gut feeling that it is.
[ADDENDUM: One of the messages to Iran that Suleimani’s death conveys is “we know where you are, and if we don’t kill you it’s because we choose not to. But at any point we can kill you if we so choose.” Even though many Iranian leaders say they’re into martyrdom, this fact still must give them pause. And it must be especially true if they venture – as Suleimani did – into Iraqi space in order to cause trouble.]
Probably like Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo in April, 1942. It didn’t have any real effect on WWII, but it had a big psychological effect.
The US has entered a serious fight with Iraqi Shia militias constructed by now dead Soleimani. Rockets are reported launched on the Green Zone in the last hour or so. Hadi al-Ameri declared today at the funeral of Muhandis the Engineer that US troops will leave Iraq, driven out by these militia. Demands that Iraqi government forces protecting the perimeters of the US embassy pull back to no less than 1,000 yards away. Incoming munitions, one must suppose. A PMU base was hit near the Syrian border within the last couple of hours, US fires on that presumably. Things are going to get hot. Which, good. This is a chance for the Iraqis to take their nation back from Iranian stooges. Doesn’t mean it will happen. But the opportunity is here for the seizing.
The Quds force, which General S. was apart of, did terrorist acts, and terr. murders, + called them “military actions”.
And now, [70 democrat-leaning, anti-war groups?] are planning peace protests against President Trump, [in the US], for Trump using the military to take out General S..
Yeah.
Right.
These Dem.s + protesters didn’t protest when president Obama did a lethal air-strike and killed the terrorist Osama Bin Laden.
In fact, they PRAISED him, + said, “he’s saving us from our enemies”. “he’s a hero”.
So, to recap, these Democrats think-
If a Democrat president kills a murdering Terrorist, he’s a “hero”.
But when a Republican president kills a murdering terrorist-
he’s a “criminal” and “a guy who is going to put us in a big, big war”.
Right.
It doesn’t work that way.
“This is a chance for the Iraqis to take their nation back from Iranian stooges. Doesn’t mean it will happen. But the opportunity is here for the seizing.” – sdferr
That looks to be Trump’s goal: we’ll clear out the guys that we’ve been at war with for decades, and remove the threat to our nation; taking your country back is up to you.
Iraq flubbed it the first time, when the US took out Saddam and everyone blamed Bush instead of the Iraqis themselves, but they were still just a coalition of tribes, like Yugoslavia after Tito.
However, Trump is not in it for the long haul out of some sense of obligation.
That is: he didn’t break it; he ain’t buyin’ it.
Another difference with Obama: Trump is not hobbling the Israelis.
I suspect they will have a pretty free hand to hit any targets they deem to be a danger.
Advantage of being seen as possibly crazy: my father had a small business located out in the country. There was a little house on the property which he rented to a guy who was prone to getting drunk and firing a pistol sort of randomly–a more or less literal loose cannon. My father considered this a feature, not a bug.
Here is what we didn’t see today AesopFan: the bad guys all bunched up at a massive funeral rally, and no MOAB comes to visit. Trump really doesn’t like killing if he can avoid it. Me? They’re all cinders. Why waste the opportunity?
Apparently we have pretty good intelligence in the ME. The knowledge that Suleimani has been tracked for years should give other bad guys pause. The religious fervor of so many of these Islamic terror types seems to blind them to the fact that they really aren’t as powerful as they think.
The ME is a conundrum. We would like to ignore the Islamists, but they insist that they must kill us or convert us. Plus, they have oil. Without oil they would be a bunch of rage-aholics wandering in the deserts. Although we are now able to supply our needs for oil, the rest of the world, many of whom are our allies, need that ME oil. So, the West cannot disengage. We tried nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of Islam, these countries are not amenable to nation building.
So, what to do? Maybe Trump’s strategy is the right one. Befriend those Muslim countries that are willing to co-exist. Keep the pressure on those that aren’t by not letting them commit acts of terror against Americans without consequences – real consequences. Do our best to keep them from being a major problem. Be realistic. These countries are never going to be liberal democracies or even civilized nations. When the oil runs out, the Islamists will mount their camels and ride back into the deserts. Yeah, that’s a long time to try to keep them in line, but I see no other way forward. It’s a bit like the Cold War. A long, messy slog that involves occasional small wars.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is a solution to the Islamist problem through diplomacy.
Although posted most recently at Ace of Spades HQ I have seen this appear for the last several years across the internet. A fitting pictorial to Neo’s addendum comment.
[ADDENDUM: One of the messages to Iran that Suleimani’s death conveys is “we know where you are, and if we don’t kill you it’s because we choose not to.[ [Neo]
https://www.meoso.com/americans-willing-to-cross-a-frozen-river-to-kill-you-in-your-sleep-on-christmas/
The problem for us is the choice of war is Iran’s. They have chosen to be at war with us since 1979. The money 0 gave them has funded their adventures in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. To worry that killing their very competent leader will result in more attacks is to not understand that their lack of attacks is not from goodness, but lack of opportunity.
To get your enemy to attack before he is ready is a plus. One reason we won the battle of Midway was that Japan only had 4 of their 6 fleet carriers there.
Iran is over extended. They are fighting on multiple fronts. Killing the leaders of their allies is a good way to discourage them. Their attack on US soil, (our embassy) is a direct act of war. Let them feel the consequences.
It is not up to us if there will be war. Will Iran choose peace, or war? This is similar to the choice we offered Japan in 1941 with our oil embargo. Withdraw from China, or go to war. Will Iran withdraw from Syria, Yemen and Iraq, or will they choose war?
“many Iranian leaders say they’re into martyrdom”
For the foot soldiers yes. Like the 12-year-olds who were sent into battle during the Iran-Iraq war. For themselves, not so much.
One after another now, dozens of reported incidents of rocket, mortar and other small indirect fires on bases where US military are based all over Iraq. Also reports that Muqtada Sadr’s forces have taken Tahrir Square by force, formerly occupied by Iraqis protesting Iranian presence in Iraq.
There is a possibility that the intel enabling this strike came from Iran’s version of the “Deep State.”
T:
The way I like to put is:
We’re Americans.
If you piss us off, we’ll kill your soldiers and overthrow your government.
If you really make us angry, we will burn your cities to the ground.
The view inside Iran is not too rosy.
“Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened “severe retaliation” for Soleimani’s killing by an American drone in Iraq, though what that might entail is unclear. U.S. sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy and any form of war with the U.S. would likely be unsustainable for the Islamic Republic. President Hassan Rouhani said the response would be long and drawn out and referred to the reaction to the coup that reinstated the Shah in 1953.”
More at: https://tinyurl.com/ugmxynz
Many rank and file Iranians have low morale and are tired of the stress of the sanctions. They’re hoping a deal might be in the offing. Unfortunately, they’re not deeply Islamists and have no power. So, it will be war – if you can call rocket attacks on bases and terror attacks on civilians, war. Trump will respond in kind. I don’t think the Iranians can last very long before they’re out of ammo and ideas. We’ll see.
Pres. Trump, twitter: “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!” (35 mins ago)
sdferr, on another blog a commenter posted a number of news articles from recent months about rocket attacks and gunfire at US bases in Iraq.
Maybe just talking points … but sounds like these events are common in the recent past even before the death of the Quds guy.
Part of a purported Trump tweet I got in email.
I love the detail, makes it more menacing IMO
Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.
Ah, I see sdferr anticipated me in the threatening tweet. Must be a valid one.
Excellent!
Consequence must go right to the top. Hold the Ayatollah Khamenei personally responsible. He’s a mass murderer, as he’s given the orders that have resulted in thousands of deaths. Next time he gives a public speech… put a cruise missile right up his ass. As for collateral damage, those around him at the least condone that mass murder and are thus accomplices.
“Accomplice
Under the English common law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offense.”
JimNorCal, I think I’d seen some 11 or so attacks had been registered over the last 8 mos. or so prior to the attack that killed the American contractor. Iraqis had been wounded in some of those I think, but I am uncertain as to deaths incurred. No Americans, at any event.
Cowardly (but shrewd, calculating) Iranians are inducing Iraqi Shia militia to attack installations hosting Americans and most probably die in their stead. Pres. Trump seems now to take different view of his reprisals: he aims to hit Iran directly. More power to him on that score, say I. Start with Sayyed Ali Khamenei, for instance and then work down the tree.
Sec. Pompeo, twitter 5:19pm today: “Iranian-owned Kata’ib Hizballah thugs are telling Iraqi security forces to abandon their duty to protect @USEmbBaghdad and other locations where Americans work side by side with good Iraqi people. The Iranian regime telling Iraq’s government what to do puts Iraqi patriots’ lives at risk. The Iraqi people want out from under the Iranian yoke; indeed, they recently burned an Iranian consulate to the ground.”
I offer that this is Trump now playing the Iranian’s game. This kind of symbolism (52 sites for 52 hostages) makes such action meaningful in a manner beyond simple repercussion. It contains an iconic intent and thus implies a seriousness of purpose that a simple warning or threat does not carry. I think it is a message that the Iranians will fundamentally understand.
Well, I can see the president having authority to take this guy out inside Iraq but these ridiculous tweets today threaten attacks inside Iran and I would think that would need some kind of congressional authorization.
And there is no appetite for this crap in the greater populace right now and I thought Trump sensed that.
This is one way he loses election.
Griffin,
When dealing with murderous religious fanatics, tweets that declare the certainty of retaliation are NOT counterproductive. Retributive attacks whose aim is deterrence through consequence are entirely within the President’s Authority and are in no way a declaration of war. To argue otherwise is to hamstring a President, possibly fatally… for the country.
…inside Iran and I would think that would need some kind of congressional authorization.
Don’t think so. In fact, acting with timely effect to defend the country — the nation’s military in harm’s way in this instance — is precisely the purpose of the executive power as designed. (See Fed. 71 on energy in the executive)
“. . . these ridiculous tweets today threaten attacks inside Iran . . . .” [Griffin @ 7:29]
The act of war was committed when Iranian proxies attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. That several (or all) of these 52 sites may be in Iran is now a minor detail. Do your really believe that there is no public appetite for punching back twice as hard? I think that is quite incorrect.
Trump has demonstrated for 3 years that he does what he says he will do. The ball is now in Iran’s court; do they respond with military aggression or not? It is their choice and they already know what the consequences will be.
Beg pardon, wrong cite: Fed. 71 should read Fed. 70. Again, apologies for my error.
Sdferr,
Ok, maybe but I would hope some real proof that it was Iran behind an attack would need to be shown. Not all terrorists are Iranian backed. Just for domestic political cover if nothing else.
Geoffrey,
Again, maybe, you are right about tactics but you also can back yourself into a corner by making outlandish threats. What is the line that leads to a counterattack?
I’ve not commented on here on this topic the last couple days but it seems like an almost universal gung ho spirit on this but there is most definitely not that attitude in the country at large and Trump has seemingly got that the last few years but now is threatening to wildly swing the other way. Or maybe have to look weak and blink.
A Democrat loss in November is the most important thing to me and this kind of talk is not good for that goal.
Especially with the demo that got him elected last time.
… maybe but I would hope some real proof that it was Iran behind an attack would need to be shown
So you dismiss Iranian public declarations they mean to seek revenge for Soleimani’s death? That seems imprudent to me. Even though I don’t think their revenge stops here, nevertheless I take their public statements as ample justification of attribution. This quite apart from any signals traffic intercepted, say.
Very important question is the true voter appetite for hitting back against Iran:
And there is no appetite for this crap in the greater populace right now and I thought Trump sensed that.
I DO have a big taste for it — but it must be successful, or close to it. A wimpy Carter like mini-rescue mission that FAILS; no appetite whatsoever.
A big strike that actually hurts Iran? Sounds very tasty to me. Including a direct cruise missile aimed at where the Ayatollah is supposed to me, even if it doesn’t get him (like the attempt by Bush on Saddam during the invasion).
Of course the Dem media will condemn it. Hysterically. But it seems very unlikely to lead towards “war” with lots of US boots in Iran. Still, more US boots are going to Iraq. Where Iran has lots of pro-Iran Shiite militias; who are opposed by anti-Iran Shiite militias, and it doesn’t seem clear to Iraq watchers that one set of militias would dominate the other set.
Maybe Trump can do the realistic peace move — choose to ally with a local Iraqi strongman and back him in taking control of Iraq back from Iran, including accepting dictator type actions by the “US ally”. Dems would condemn many actions of any such ally as a huge violation of human rights; and they probably would be (like the Shah was), tho less than the alternative.
One never-before-seen advantage of Trump is that, after 3 years of constant hysterical anti-Trump screaming by the Dem media, it’s unlikely that a new set of hysterics will create much more opposition to Trump. Lindsey Graham said he was briefed just before the strike — it would be smart of Trump to brief him again, or some other Senate leaders.
Ships and oil refineries remain my other preferred targets; tho military training camps are not off the table, either.
T,
So they attack several other embassies in that region? Do we keep sending more troops to defend them also? Then they set off a bomb that kills a couple hundred troops do we escalate further? Once this starts it can rather quickly lead to a much bigger effort.
And I don’t sense any will to punch back twice as hard. Of course, now if Iran does something a reasonable answer would be Trump brought it on by greatly escalating the conflict.
I knew these views would not be popular here so I’ve just lurked last couple days but these asinine tweets triggered me.
And I’m not some isolationist but this hell hole region will never be fixed and our periodic meddling there accomplishes nothing but setting up the next round.
asinine tweets
That there is what the logic game calls a petitio principii or what used to be known as “begging the question” in the days before people turned generally stupid and used the phrase to mean “let’s ask!”.
sdferr,
How oh how did presidents ever get their points across to adversaries before Twitter?
Sorry? Or, I mean, who cares? The point is communication, and twitter is very effective for this. Rapid, too!
Also the deeper this thing goes the higher the price of oil goes. We may be the largest producer in the world now but our oil is susceptible to market forces also. Price of a barrel spikes to $80 plus and then that shows up at the pump and that is not popular with voters and the economy as a whole.
I guess my point is that this is not necessarily such a simple no consequences endeavor as some make it sound and with an election on the horizon that will be close getting involved in some foreign entanglement seems unwise. But that’s just me I guess.
Griffin,
There’s no way a ground war would be popular with Americans. Those tend to be very messy, very expensive and the result very disappointing even when the US “win”.
But many US actions haven’t been ground wars, and have been successful because 1) they’re relatively cheap, 2) they’re relatively free from killing non-combatants.
Any war with Iran will not involve US troops in Iran, we can be pretty sure of that. There’s no way the US could be involved in setting up a regime, because that would effectively remove its legitimacy from the start.
But a total naval blockade, a total no-fly zone, and disruption of all oil refining and the Iranians literally start to starve. The land routes are far too long, and far too easily disrupted, so imports would pretty much cease.
NATO air power brought Serbia to its senses pretty quickly — and the Serbian government was actually popular is Serbia. The Iranian Mullahs have minimal popular support.
Ground action might be needed against the Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen — but in those cases the US would be supporting people who already hate Iran.
I’m not suggesting there would be a ground war but they have already increased the military presence in Iraq and if the US bombs a few targets that will likely increase the chances of terrorist attacks targeting US personnel. It was the exact reason used when Trump wanted out of Syria. Yeah we only have a small presence but what if they are attacked then we bring more and so and so on. Plus this is not going to be popular with the Chinese or the Russians which I guess you can say who cares but it just adds to geopolitical issues that don’t look much like America First to me.
…this is not necessarily such a simple no consequences endeavor as some make it sound
There are of course consequences in every direction, whether in the variety of actions or in the variety of inactions. Some efficiencies may take a role, surely, as in (how did the President put it?) “WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.” Doesn’t appear to me Pres. Trump intends to fool around wasting time. He seems to mean this will be over very shortly. Take him at his word, as the Ayatollah should also do if the Ayatollah knows what’s good for the survival of his regime, to say nothing of the good of his people.
…they have already increased the military presence in Iraq
Yes. Not so many, however, at least not publicly announced. 100 Marines from Kuwait to the Embassy is all I’ve heard of so far. And these Marines can leave about as fast as they arrived, no?
Ha! Now I know why I haven’t commented on this topic. Feels like I’ve been transported back to 2003 when everybody on the right said everything was going to be easy peasy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drop some bombs wipe out some overmatched militaries and come home.
Same region different actors (kind of) but same rosy simplistic predictions from our side.
Chinese or the Russians
Yeah. No.
sdfer,
I saw pentagon to deploy 3500 additional troops to Middle East. Maybe not all to Iraq but my point stands.
sdferr,
Ok, whatever I’m done arguing about this have a nice night.
…chances of terrorist attacks targeting US personnel. It was the exact reason used when Trump wanted out of Syria.
Would you explain this? I don’t think this was the issue leading to our withdrawal from Northeastern Syria, but rather, the imminent advance of Turkish regulars and their Sunni allied militia driving against the YPG/PKK there. The US still has small groups in Syria patrolling for ISIS types (y’know, terrorists), as well as blocking Iranian access to a Syria-Jordan border crossing.
3500 additional troops to Middle East
Ah, yes, these are bound for Kuwait I think, if not already there. I don’t think your point stands in this instance. We’d need to know how these troops are intended to be employed.
Responding to Griffin @ 8:33
“Once this starts it can rather quickly lead to a much bigger effort.”
“Can” does not mean “Will”. Iran is a bully that has been fighting an assymetrical war, like the Tet ofensive in Viet Nam, their wins are because of our lack of response or our weak response. Trump rings to the table a most important quality that we have not seen in any administration since Reagan, or perhaps earlier; that is, the will to win. When one puts downs schoolyard bully, there is always a chance that the bully will still retaliate.
Secondly, you seem to approach this as though it will definitively,or can only, lead to boots on the ground. As Chester Draws noted above:
These surgical strikes have been used by administrations back to the Clinton era with little long term political effect.
I’m not saying you are unequivocally wrong, there is always a chance that things can go bad or, for whatever reason, the public refuses to support such action. I do think, however, that you are not weighing the possibilities. Your dismissing of Trump’s tweets as “ridiculous” implies that you write them off as the knee-jerk bravado reactions of some unstable or uninformed president. What about the fact that they are part and parcel of an overall strategy and rather than ridiculous bravado, they are carefully crafted and timed for a specific effect?
IMO, Trump has consistently shown himself to be intentional and and planned with many of his tweets under the guise of intemperate knee-jerk reactions. And finally, don’t forget that this is a story in which probably 90% of the facts are unknown to us and will probably always remain so. Your and my opinions are based upon only the most superficial reading of what is going on because that is all we are privy to.
@doranimated, twitter 8:52pm: “Crucial Trump thread. The US has targeted 52 sites in Iran for destruction. The self-restraint that characterized US policy is now officially over. Iran is not Russia, China, or even N. Korea. It does not have the capability to win the escalation ladder. We aren’t deterred.”
@doranimated, twitter 9:13pm: “Interesting. Trump’s goal is to warn: the gloves are off. We aren’t going to hit unmanned oil platforms & empty air bases. We’re not out “to send a message.” It’s the America of Andrew Jackson & Harry Truman speaking now. Iran has never heard this voice & doesn’t understand it.”
“Pres. Trump seems now to take different view of his reprisals: he aims to hit Iran directly. More power to him on that score, say I”
That Trump fellow seems to have never heard the phrase “kick the can down the road”. He picks hard problems then aims to resolve them.
Excellent! says I.
Yep, JimNorCal, M. Doran says Iran hasn’t heard this voice from America before and doesn’t understand it.
I’d add that it appears there are quite a few Americans who haven’t heard this voice before either, and are having a similar difficulty of interpretation. Takes a bit of work, says I, but with persistence and good faith, it can be done.
It would appear that Griffin has succumbed to the Puget Sound variant of the Stockholm Syndrome; started to spout progressive foreign policy concerns.
om,
No, just have no interest in foreign adventures with far ranging implications and dubious domestic interests. Thought that was a much more popular belief on the right than twenty years but I guess not at least among the commenters here.
So let us back up a bit Griffin and set out what you are interested in. Then see whether we agree about what US aims ought to be. Then, whether we can think how to get there from here?
Griffin:
As far as the idea that “everybody on the right said everything was going to be easy peasy in Iraq and Afghanistan” goes, please see this post as well as this one.
Griffin:
By the way, I’m not at all keen on those latest tweets of Trump’s either. I think they are too specific, for one thing. I think his actions spoke louder than his words, and it would have been best to just offer some general remarks that more destruction on the part of Iran will result in retaliation by the US.
I often don’t like Trump’s tweets; for example, his taunts towards Kim Jong-un. But sometimes they are effective. I don’t think he just shoots from the hip. I think all the tweets are very much thought out. But these make me very feel very on edge.
I was vociferously against the Iraq war #2 And heavy involvement in Afghanistan. But that was because they had no end game.
War with Iran is unlikely, because the Mullahs know it is asymmetric. Not just in the usual sense, mentioned above, but in terms of winning. The most they can inflict on the US is embarrassment and cost. But if they lose, then their regime collapses — and losing is very likely.
They’d be taking a 10 cent win on a dollar bet. So they won’t bite.
neo,
Went back and read your links and I agree with your thoughts from 2005. But I would add that it’s not just the actual warfare it’s what comes next. Iraq was a disaster for many reasons among them a domestic opposition that didn’t share the Bush strategy. So when he was gone any continuity was gone leading to the present day when we are blowing up Iranian generals in Baghdad.
But the general belief in my recollection of too many was that the Iraqis would just love democracy once Saddam was gone but that was way too rosy an outlook. This region of the world has has always been factional and unstable and sadly probably always will be. So now in present day what are all the unknowns that will arise if the current Iranian regime is removed? Who knows but history tells us there is a good chance it will be very unstable and possibly just as dangerous as the current one only in a different way. These things need to be given great consideration before acting.
I’m far from some progressive as I’ve been accused of tonight but I’m not sure supporting foreign interventions is a conservative requirement. Or sure as hell isn’t for me.
As John Lennon once sang, “Give Griffin a chance!”
The wisdom about “the fog of war” and that “no plan survives contact with the enemy” is absolutely true. War is horribly imprecise and not a science at all.
The initial phase of the Iraq War was easy-peasy. Remember those long lines of tanks burning and the quick surrender? Christopher Hitchens swore he saw Iraqis welcoming coalition troops with flowers.
It went wrong later. Is anyone that surprised?
We just had the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. The Allied command focused on D-Day, as well they should have. After the invasion succeeded they took a deep breath, figured the rest was mop-up and the boys would be home for Christmas.
Woops! The Nazis mounted a terrific counter-offensive and prolonged the war until the following May.
So do we renounce D-Day because the generals got it wrong after? (Yo, MBunge!)
These are all steps into the unknown. We do our best but…
Nobody knows anything….. Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.
–William Goldman, “Adventures in the Screen Trade”
Even more so for war.
And woops! Make that the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.
So good to see Edit solid, but I missed the window.
It was only a matter of time.
Do these people really have to be in on the briefings?
And are any of them telling the truth?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/deep-state-leaks-portion-of-intelligence-briefing-on-drone-strike-that-killed-soleimani-to-ny-times-reporter-in-order-to-damage-trump/
When the media and young uns start bellowing or wailing WW3!, WW3!, please don’t hurt me (Iran) it is comical and sad at the same time.
Griffin, have you been paying attention to Iranian actions in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq lately, or over the last 20 years? Do you concede that Iran’s actions may already been trying to influence the 2020 election, even before their “revered military leader” met his maker?
Zumwalt mentions an incident I had forgotten or never knew about.
We should have answered Iran’s provocations with a declaration of war )more like a recognition of the existing state of war) decades ago, and responded accordingly.
It might have deterred Saddam — who knows?
At any rate, the points he cites expose as perfidious buffoonery the UN’s claim that killing Soleimani was a violation of International Law.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/01/04/zumwalt-soleimanis-demise-could-end-irans-long-one-way-war-with-america/
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/03/u-n-u-s-broke-international-law-eliminating-soleimani/
You know, I was about as delighted as most people here that this terrorist general was taken out, but now reading a New York Times article, (I know, they’re definitely not in Trump’s corner), they bring up the issue of Iraqi sovereignty and the fact the US did not ask the Iraqi government’s permission in conducting this operation that happened to go down outside their international airport in a suburban street.
Yes, many Iraqi’s celebrated, but most did not and even our allies there arent happy. The Times article says all this attack really accomplished was to drive the populace opinion towards Iran and away from the US:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/us-iraq.html
Griffin poses a good question: “So they attack several other embassies in that region? Do we keep sending more troops to defend them also?”
I love me some terrorist popping military operation that furthers US security anywhere, but is that what we’ve actually accomplished here?
…is that what we’ve actually accomplished here?
If you don’t already know the answer to that question, and this without any need to seek an answer in an enemy propaganda publication, there is nothing anyone here can say in answer that will make a difference to settling it for you. Go your way: expect the worst.
And by the way, that particular question Griffin posed is of little use at all. It’s a rhetorical mushroom: a fruiting body fit to whither in a day.
OK Mr Hannity.
Anybody else?
wither, obvs.
Those two sources to the reporter should be identified immediately and charged with applicable laws. If the information that the NY Times printed that clear warning to Suleimani in advance of the operation is correct, then the Times ownership and editors should also be charged with treason. This should be done ASAP and the trials expedited. Many would volunteer for the firing squad in the event of convictions. Restoring the rule of law that these outlaws flout is a Trump priority that needs tending.
“Griffin poses a good question: “So they attack several other embassies in that region? Do we keep sending more troops to defend them also?””
And, of course, the obvious response to that is “So, we should never do anything because it might cause evil people to do evil?”
If Iraq wants us out after this, we should leave and take our embassy with us since Iraq clearly can’t be trusted to defend it. If other nation’s can’t control their own territory to prevent attacks on our embassies, we should leave there as well.
This is the same stupid argument that used to be had over the Soviet Union. It’s not wrong to question the dangers of changing the status quo but why are the defenders of that status quo never held accountable for all the evil it sustains?
Iran executes people for being homosexual. Where’s the liberal BDS campaign over that?
Mike
Harry is concerned that the NY Times found the kinetic action taken to retire the “respected, esteemed, austere, soulful, sensitive, military leader” was not vetted by Iran’s proxies in the Iraqi government.
I should be concerned for Harry, Next thing, he will be calling me a poopy head.
Apropos of this discussion from Victor Davis Hanson:
And the money quote: “. . . so far the Iranians, not the U.S., are making all the blunders.”
It’s Victor Davis Hanson so read the whole thing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iranian-analytics/
If Iraq wants us out after this, we should leave and take our embassy with us since Iraq clearly can’t be trusted to defend it.
This is a difficulty to be sure, but an ambiguous one first off.
What, we can ask, is the meaning of “Iraq” in the present context, where Iranian built and funded militias and their political-religious arms control various segments of the nominally Iraqi politics, holding a majority of seats in parliament? Appointed by Iranian satraps, these and other “Iranqi” politicans in Iraq aren’t representative of Iraqi political views. Nor the various Executive branch politicians put in place by Qassem Soleimani.
Just as Hezbollah in Lebanon controls from behind the scene every aspect of Lebanese politics, and Hezbollah is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary (through Nasrallah) of the Velayat-e Faqih of Khamenei, so verging now in Iraq the self-same subservience emerges through al-Ameri, Muqtada Sadr, Qais Khazali, etal. How are we to call this “Iraqi”? It obviously is not. And who is our primary adversary here — not merely in Iraq but region wide?
Iran, of course.
So picking up our chips and leaving the table at this juncture may only play into the hands of those whose behavior we seek to change.
And this apart from the obvious, wide-spread, long-lived outcry of Iraqis protesting, Iraqis who have no military power but want their country back from the invader Iran. Kurds, Sunnis, Shia too: these are likely to be an actual if unmeasured majority of the people of Iraq.
Hard thinking is in order. Picking off “Iranqis” in aid of loyal Iraqis may be on the plate. Working to help those loyal Iraqis firm up their control is surely in our longer term interests. Now is the time. Let’s see how Sec. Pompeo and company handle it.
“So picking up our chips and leaving the table at this juncture may only play into the hands of those whose behavior we seek to change.”
Here’s the problem. We don’t need to change their behavior.
Why has the Middle East been seen as globally important? One, oil. Two, it was a region where you could imagine the U.S. and the Soviet Union being drawn into a war. Thanks to fracking, “one” no longer matters as much. “Two” no longer exists at all. The Middle East’s importance in U.S. national security and for U.S. national interests has greatly diminished. It’s not entirely unimportant, of course, but it’s undeniably less important than at any time in the last 50 or 60 years at least.
Yet, U.S. thinking and U.S. policy toward the Middle East has not changed at all to reflect that lessened importance. This is another piece of the whole Trump/Brexit phenomenon where the structures and mindset of the post-WWII/post-Cold War world are being reevaluated by the people but not by our elites.
Mike
Here’s the problem. We don’t need to change their behavior.
We can choose another strategy, it’s true. But this is the strategy we are pursuing now. Listen to the Sec State: https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1213838656722612224
And may I say also as it occurs to me, any who think the Trump administration from the very top down, from the President himself, are unaware that this is the decisive moment of opportunity they have been aiming for just isn’t paying attention. They know: they are acting decisively. These fuckers know how to play this game. They’re the best we had the privilege to witness in a very long time in America. They’re good. They know it. They play to win, and walking away with victory in hand just isn’t their way.
US kicked out of Iraq? Well, yes … and no. From a commenter at the JustOneMinute blog:
https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1213836196612321280
Alavi explains some further details on that vote. Here are a few:
Non-binding vote. Now up to government to decide.
Kurdistan Region Parliament can reject abiding by the decision. Iraq gov decision could take months.
Iraqi Parliament votes bill equivalent of a non-binding Congressional resolution recommending the Iraq gov to remove foreign forces.
The Iraq Parliament session was nothing but a show by pro-Iran MPs, as described by @MPSarkawtShams. pic.twitter.com/VFZUFTVnAH
— Heshmat Alavi (@HeshmatAlavi) January 5, 2020
link goes to a screen cap from a pro-US member of Parliament.
So are pre-emptive attacks “pure naked aggression”? Curious minds, etc.
(Suggestion: Only when they are done by a western—or Jewish—power)…..
Oh, BTW….
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-u-s-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z
(H/T: Powerline blog)
East is East and West is West….no longer.
Ye gods, given the way things have been grinding this year so far—and we’re ONLY five days in—it is clear that the person in the street (or in front of the screen?) is sorely in need of uplifting. And so it is only apt to present, for our mental and emotional well-being at the very least, the “humorous tidbit of the day”—actually, the entire week, month and year…:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/476745-democratic-impeachment-case-collapses-under-weight-of-time
(H/T Powerline blog)
Indeed, Turley rides again!
(Ah, where would we be without the Democratic Party?)
Harry:
It’s certainly possible the NY Times is correct. But if so, it would be one of the few occasions. The trouble is that there is no reason whatsoever to trust what they write. And when trust is gone, it’s gone.
In addition, I have come to distrust all articles – no matter where they are published – that purport to tell how the majority of the Iraqi people feel. Iran has many Iraqi sympathizers in Iraq and I have little doubt that they hate the US and anything the US does. Likewise, there are many people in Iraq who hate Iran and I believe are quite happy at what happened to Suleimani. The Times or any other paper, pro or con Trump, can go out and find tons of either kind of person and then write the story it wishes to write with the message it wishes to convey. It doesn’t mean that such articles will be a fair representation of the truth.
Yet, U.S. thinking and U.S. policy toward the Middle East has not changed at all to reflect that lessened importance. This is another piece of the whole Trump/Brexit phenomenon where the structures and mindset of the post-WWII/post-Cold War world are being reevaluated by the people but not by our elites.
MBunge seems to forget that it was always more complicated. The elites were never as monolithic as he imagines.
In the aftermath of 9-11, and for good reasons, Bush 43 was able to bring American elites on board for the Iraq War, but aside from the UK, the Europeans generally opposed the war, because they feared disruption and/or they were stakeholders in Hussein’s regime. European support for the war was entirely tepid.
Within two years of the Iraq War’s start, liberal American elites and the MSM turned against the war, and remain as adamant against it as MBunge — all wringing their hands in horror, how the MSM must never, ever unite behind such an enterprise.
We see the same pattern today over the killing of Suleimani with more pearl clutching from the liberal elites, MSM and MBunge.
“Non-binding vote.”
Iraqi parliamentary vote and what it means, continued:
https://twitter.com/hahussain/status/1213868531877662721
https://twitter.com/hahussain
H/T: Lee Smith twitter link:
https://twitter.com/leesmithdc?lang=en
The Obamites are out spinning their tales as fast as their mouths can run, poor little dears. They don’t seem to have figured out just how exposed the ultimate results are going to leave their web of lies and foolishness, to say nothing of their abject treachery to the nation. Ah well, payback’s a bitch it’s said, and in this case, richly earned.
Hello Neo, thanks for the reply.
Taking into account that the NY Times isnt going to wish this administration well, I consider the source tainted yet am forced to face the fact that even among the Iraqi citizens to oppose Iranian involvement, in that part of the world, they have more in common culturally with Iran than they do us and probably tired of us doing what we want, whenever we want to do it, on top of the fact that we as a nation don’t seem to have a clear, unified idea of what we’re doing there anyway, so, like it or not, the NY Times may actually have it right.
Lets say they do. Is that a legitimate concern that we violated Iraqi sovereignty in order to get this guy? Is this something thats going to bite us in the behind down the road?
Let’s say they don’t. Why are they so anti-American, then? Why are you, Harry? Whatcha got against decency, Harry? What the hell is wrong with you people?
We violated Pakistani sovereignty to get Osama bin Laden as I recall. Israel may have violated Argentine sovereignty when they captured Eichmann. The late austere scholar and former head of ISIS may have felt violated in his sovereignty too. Sad.
Spare me your tears of concern and anguished cries. Sorry if you but is bit. Put some ice on it.
Profiles in Tribalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_protests_(2019%E2%80%93present)
(Democrats, take note.)
We have om Hannity’s and sdferr Hannities. Take your pick. Either way, like Sean Hannity, you’re going to know what their opinion is, well before they give it.
Om: I’m fine with having to violate somebody elses sovregnity when necessary. Pakistan would have leaked the information allowing Osama to get away and Israel doesnt need Argentina. We’re supposed to be keeping Iraq in our sphere of influence. Not all cases of violating other peoples sovereignty is valid.
I have no idea what this “Hannity” stuff is Harry. If you intend something serious by it, spell it out. Otherwise, we can simply ignore it as inconsequential, and you can cease wasting your time with it.
As to “violations” of sovereignty, you will have to make a case, which you have not done as yet. Do you know how? Why is this even interesting to you? What does it gain you, or gain anyone? What have you got, apart from robotic handwaving?
sdferr, I openly invite you to ignore all my posts as inconsequential. I wasnt addressing my concerns to you anyway.
Well now that’s a tempting thought Harry, so little do you bring worthy of consideration. Pity you take the trouble to malign your country instead, and it’s on that ground you can expect to hear from me.
That is, I assume it’s your country Harry, and that you are not an overseas troll.
“Pity you take the trouble to malign your country instead, and it’s on that ground you can expect to hear from me.”
You’re a full on clown. On that grounds you can expect me to ignore any of the rest of your posts as inconsequential.
Notice:
No answer. No response, no attempt at justification whatsoever. No explanation. Just deflection, non sequitur. Why? Pride? What?
It’s official: Donald Trump is worth more than Salman Rushdie.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/iran-puts-80m-bounty-on-trumps-head-for-soleimani-hit/
Rushdie was unavailable for comment.
….Hold on. Looks like I’m wrong again (is Rushdie ever unavailable for comment?):
https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/salman-rushdie-says-he-is-responsible-for-donald-trump-1250201-2018-06-04
That being said, there are no doubt many who are likely convinced that the money (how much of which was, um, put up by the previous US administration?) is being put to excellent use….
(our take, Kathy Griffin?)
Um, that should be, “(Your take…?)”.
Hmmm. let’s see. Will the commentariat respond with something like, “Look what Trump’s made those poor Iranian Mullahs do, now!!”
Barry Meislin
It’s official: Donald Trump is worth more than Salman Rushdie.
There were many Demos who informed us that killing Suleimani was an act of war (as if we have been at peace with the Mullahs for the last 40 years… As if the attack on the American Embassy in Iraq was not an act of war…. ) 🙂
Regarding the Mullahs putting an $80 million bounty on Donald Trump, I wonder how many of those same Demos will inform us that the $80 million bounty is NOT an act of war.
The bounty is at least an indication that the Mullahs were rather upset at losing their General cum Secretary of State.
“…NOT an act of war.”
Indeed, what are the chances they’ll view it as an investment in the future of the planet…?
And in other—surprising!—news, the unceasingly innovative NYT takes the ever popular “accurate but fake” debate and—raising it to the next level, in a stroke of pure genius—reframes it as “true but misleading”!!
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/04/new-york-times-soleimani-iraqis-dancing-street-video-misleading/
Are those guys clever or what!!
Rastakhiz @sedaye_iran: Massive Funeral Procession video
[After successful Operation Anthropoid]
Related (to NYT vs. reality debate):
https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/1213828108966649856
Poor, poor Harry:
He has a sore but because his revered military leader is mist (and bits and scrapings).
Harry takes his truth from the NY Times and expects to be taken as a serious adult. Sad indeed.
Come Harry are all those who disagree with you watchers Faux News? Could such people understand anything on the level of our Neo, much less on the level of Harry?
Regarding respecting the sovereignty of other nations you state that it all depends on what is in our (USA’s) national interest, and tough for them if they don’t like it. So with that cry some more until your party is back in power and f’n things up again,
Clue to Harry: President Trump sets foreign policy, not the NY Times or you.
Barry Meislin on January 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm said:
It’s official: Donald Trump is worth more than Salman Rushdie.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/iran-puts-80m-bounty-on-trumps-head-for-soleimani-hit/
* * *
I’m waiting for the Trump tweet asking, “Is that all ya got?”
Chump change.
“Poor, poor Harry: He has a sore but because his revered military leader is mist.”
Aaaand here we hear from clown #2.
Would liberals have apologized to nazi germany if we had assassinated hitler in 1937?
Harry;
Does Manju give you a percentage of the troll fees or are you his substitute troll while he talks to the crickets?
I hope you liked the photo of your revered militia leader’s ring. He’s handed off his duties to some other stalwart servant of the Iranian revolution.
Would liberals have apologized to nazi germany if we had assassinated hitler in 1937?
Back then, hell no. Stalin had declared Hitler an enemy, y’know. Party line, baby.
Harry:
Here is another topic for concern and lamentation:
https://twitter.com/Mr_Alshammeri/status/1213224771783200768
“Breaking: wanted by the U.S. #AbdulredhaShahlai which had a bounty of $15 Million #Iranian Commander In #Yemen. Operation in Sanaa led to killing him.
high-level member of the
IRGC’s. his relationship with #QassemSoleimani dating back to the days of the Iran-Iraq war
#Saudi”
“MBunge seems to forget that it was always more complicated.“
No. “It’s complicated” is the lie people inevitably fall back on when they’re proven wrong but don’t want to admit it. The truth is that most things in life are like pushing a stone up a steep hill…difficult but not complicated.
For 40 years, American foreign policy was largely oriented around the Cold War. The Cold War has been over now for 30 years. American foreign policy, however, largely remains unchanged and where it has changed it is mostly in seeking weaker substitutes for the Soviet Union in order to justify the same old thinking.
Mike
I remember Harry as a good guy libertarian — correct me if I am wrong. These waters are deep, complex and thoroughly roiled. People disagree and I disagree with Harry, but let’s take a moment or two.
Harry’s point, or one anyway, is:
Is [it] a legitimate concern that we violated Iraqi sovereignty in order to get this guy? Is this something thats going to bite us in the behind down the road?
It might be if Iran were Sweden and just going about its business, but it is not. Iran is a nation hip-deep in terrorism, including a long-standing operations in Iraq which have killed thousands of people, Iraqis and Americans.
Now they have launched operations against our embassy in Iraq, normally an act of war, and reminding those of us old enough to remember of their occupation and hostage-taking in 1979.
Harry, what is your objection here? Is it the principle (and how is Iran blameless for launching military actions on Iraq soil?) or is it pragmatism that other nations won’t like us and the US will suffer for it?
MBunge: Not at all a direct or substantive response.
Forget it.
Harry objects to Iranian IRGC-QF Gen. Soleimani violating Iraqi sovereignty by commanding his Iranqi militia minions to execute peacefully protesting Iraqis on the streets of major cities for weeks on end.
Surely. Right?
Barry Meislin on January 5, 2020 at 2:18 pm said:
So are pre-emptive attacks “pure naked aggression”? Curious minds, etc.
(Suggestion: Only when they are done by a western—or Jewish—power)…..
Oh, BTW….
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-u-s-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z
***
Interesting about that article: does it mean no one in media knew about the meetings, knowledge of which would be a warning to the US and allies; or that someone at Reuters knew, but was not interested in publishing the info until they could get some spin-mileage out of it; or that the sources for this article only divulged the information after Soleimani was killed?
The actual time-line would lead to different conclusions about the press and the Iranian actors; it’s unclear if any Iraqis were involved, but they might have been included in the anonymous sources.
Looks like the US had some knowledge of these secret meetings anyway; this is the “razor thin” justification for killing Soleimani so decried by the Left.
The US had “reason to believe” these things because they were true.
Just a round up of interesting stories about Iran.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/01/05/760343/
“NYT Claims Top Pentagon Officials Were ‘Flabbergasted’ When President Trump Agreed to Use Their Plan to Kill Soleimani
Posted at 1:30 pm on January 5, 2020 by streiff”
streiff is not impressed by the gob-smacking knaves and/or fools in the Pentagon.
https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2020/01/05/iran-completely-done-nuclear-agreement/
Iran: We’re Completely Done With The Nuclear Agreement
TAYLOR MILLARDPosted at 8:01 pm on January 5, 2020
https://pjmedia.com/trending/breaking-iran-ends-commitment-to-nuclear-deal-it-never-abided-by-in-the-first-place/
BREAKING: Iran Ends Commitment to Nuclear Deal It Never Abided By in The First Place
BY MATT MARGOLIS JANUARY 5, 2020
Taylor and Matt are not impressed by the gob-smacking knaves and/or fools who believe (or say they do) that Iran is now or ever was abiding by the agreement.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/05/iraqi-parliament-votes-end-u-s-troop-presence-soleimani-killing-sort-not-really/
Iraqi Parliament Votes To End U.S. Troop Presence After Soleimani Killing. Sort Of. Not Really.
ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 2:01 pm on January 5, 2020
AP is not impressed by the gob-smacking knaves and/or fools who will tout this as a popular movement in Iraq, when “It was only the Shiite MPs who showed up to vote.”
Well, now I’m impressed that Iran was willing to expose the knaves who persuaded the fools to sign onto the Nuclear Deal in the first place.
This has been out for more than 18 months; how come we don’t have a list of names yet?
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/05/13/irans-foreign-minister-threatens-expose-western-diplomats-took-bribes-create-iran-nuclear-deal/
Iran’s Foreign Minister Threatens to Expose Western Diplomats Who Took Bribes to Create the Iran Nuclear Deal
Posted at 10:38 am on May 13, 2018 by streiff
* * *
I wonder how much Obama and Biden raked in?
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/
The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook
An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah’s billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House’s desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.
By Josh Meyer
https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2020/01/05/soleimani-was-another-obama-timebomb/
Posted at 1:00 pm on January 5, 2020 by Stu Cvrk
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11741235/Obamas-Iran-deal-has-just-granted-an-amnesty-to-the-worlds-leading-terrorist-mastermind.html
As head of the Quds Force in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading terrorists. Now Barack Obama has effectively granted him an amnesty.
By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor2:03PM BST 15 Jul 2015
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/05/report-biden-played-a-critical-role-that-helped-iran-and-terror-leader-soleimani-gain-control-in-iraq/
Posted at 2:30 pm on January 5, 2020 by Nick Arama
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/biden-sided-with-terror-leader-soleimani-in-handing-control-of-iraq-to-iran/
Adam Kredo – JANUARY 3, 2020 2:55 PM
Side note to any LGBT-activists who are worried about the awful right-wing bigots suppressing / oppressing you, but are joining the Democrats in mourning Soleimani and berating Trump: this is the country your friends are supporting.
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-publicly-hangs-man-on-homosexuality-charges-578758
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL JANUARY 26, 2019 10:25
Let me see — what else has been going on between Iran and America for about 40 years?
PS
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/01/05/there-is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-democrats-n2558953
huxley: Thanks for your even handed reply that didnt equate my concerns with maligning my own country. I wish people would either actually read what Ive written or actually respond to what Ive actually wrote. Unfortunately, I have to lump you into that group even though you were fair with me in not maligning my motives for asking the question.
My concerns about sovereignty has nothing to do with Iran’s sovereignty, which I could care less.. My concern was about Iraq’s complaints about the violation of their sovereignty.
Iraq has already voted to expel US troops from their country. Yes, its non-binding and passed only with Shiite, not Sunni votes and although, Im sure many Sunni Muslims applaud that general being eliminated, (as well as many others in the region), the NY Times has quoted anti-Iranian Iraqi’s complaints that stomping on their sovereignty with high explosives on an Iraqi highway is apt to piss people off regardless. Yes, its from the NY Times. It doesnt mean the point is invalid.
If I live in Alabama, raised with a strict religious upbringing, while I might celebrate the arrest of an abortion clinic bomber, i”d be resentful that the FBI took over the case rather than it being handled by the local sheriff. Thats all Im trying to say.
Im sure, after a while, as the memory of this fades, more Sunni muslims will come to appreciate what we did this week and Im sure Trump isnt going out of its way to conduct these operations to spite people…I just hope we dont end up permanently alienating people that we may need as allies.
“Targeting cultural sites” has become the loon’s new “quid pro quo”. It’s awesome how their flexibility with reader response theory enables the leftists to just make up whatever suits their needs as they go along.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/joe-biden-blames-president-trump-for-causing-new-cycle-of-violence-with-iran/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=first
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-scolds-trump-for-recklessly-escalating-tensions-with-iran-by-killing-soleimani/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=fourteenth
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ben-rhodes-is-suddenly-interested-in-congressional-authorization/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=eleventh
Trump is a Russian asset, er, stooge, er, whatever.
He just proved it by … doing something that Russia vehemently objected to.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/qasem-soleimani-killing-russia-warns-united-states-of-grave-consequences/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=fifth
But, but — Trump and Putin are twins separated at birth!
Why wouldn’t he tell good ol’ Vlad that he was about to totally destroy the Russian-Iranian hegemony in the Middle East?
A very good analysis of the JCPOA, which Biden sorta said is the source of all the malarkey in Iran.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/iran-deal-withdrawal-trump-decision-does-not-hurt-us-credibility/?itm_source=parsely-api
The Iran Deal and the Rule of Law
By JONATHAN S. TOBIN May 10, 2018 12:52 PM
* Some people signed something, but I’m not really sure we know who signed exactly what.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
Harry:
Is huxley a Hanity bot too? “stomping on somebody with high explosives on their highways” might piss people off you say. Shooting Iraqi demonstrators opposed to Iran- backed politicians in Iraq, that wouldn’t piss anybody off? Selective concern writ large. Keep the faith in your NY Times, and cite a non-binding vote by pro-Iran MPs. Sad, boy, sad.
In case you missed it, nobody was talking about Iran’s sovereignty. Find a better strawman or scarecrow to hide behind.
Harry:
Here are a few things your NY Times won’t tell you
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/photos_top_10_atrocities_from_the_lefts_vaunted_soleimani.html
You may want to calibrate your concern-o-meter.
Mustn’t piss off the fellow travelers of that revered military leader.
Harry: So you are saying that there was a complicated Iraqi vote, based only on Shiites (Iran is Shiite) to expel the US from Iraq, and that’s good enough for you to take a principled stand that when Iranian terrorists attack the US Embassy, still legally in Iraq as far as I know, and commit who knows what mayhem on our citizens in our embassy, that’s OK?
And the US has no right to respond? Not just to this but Suleimani’s long murderous history against Iraqis and Americans?
Really?
Good luck with that.
Why was an Iranian general in Iraq? What was his business in Iraq?
“What was his business in Iraq?”
Well, if he was at the airport he was probably watching CNN (kidding!)
huxley: “So you are saying that there was a complicated Iraqi vote, based only on Shiites (Iran is Shiite) to expel the US from Iraq, and that’s good enough for you to take a principled stand that when Iranian terrorists attack the US Embassy…”
My god, read what the fuck I wrote, not what the fuck you thought I wrote.
[[NOTE from Neo to Harry: I’m leaving this up because others have responded to it. I was away from my computer till very late, so I didn’t get a chance to see it. But in the future, refrain from this sort of thing or you’ll be banned. That’s considered a warning. Personal insults of this nature don’t help anything, including your argument.]]
Who is this foul-mouthed clown?
Harry: OK. Say again, more slowly. Perhaps without profanities. And perhaps considering your audience.
I’m not always as smart as I pretend. That was my sincere response.
What I had written contained zero profanities. Those came when you seemed to mis-characterize my response with apparent condescension. The part I was concerned with was: Im sure many Sunni Muslims applaud that general being eliminated, (as well as many others in the region), the NY Times has quoted anti-Iranian Iraqi’s (most likely a Sunni muslim with pro-US leanings) complaints that stomping on their sovereignty with high explosives on an Iraqi highway is apt to piss people off regardless.
Thats who’s response I was concerned with.
What I had written contained zero profanities.
Harry: No, your response to me contained profanities. You don’t get off for that.
While I understand that some Iraqis, most likely Shiites, didn’t care for “high explosives on an Iraqi highway” — I’m sure everyone here gets that — there are bigger pictures to consider as well, and you are not addressing those.
most likely a Sunni muslim with pro-US leanings
That’s the macguffin in this version of “The Trouble With Harry”, whereas in the earlier one, the macguffin was the corpse.
What comes after “What I had written contained zero profanities.” Huxley? This entire thread has grown exasperating.
“MBunge: Not at all a direct or substantive response.”
Nothing seems like a substantive response to someone committed to maintaining a ridiculous delusion. I can understand someone still defending the decision to invade Iraq given what was known at the time. This is now, however, not then and the passage of time has demonstrated quite conclusively that the Iraq War was a catastrophic mistake which was compounded by the gross incompetence or negligence of those who led us into it. This is not actually debatable.
Likewise, it’s really not debatable that American thinking about and policy toward the Middle East in 2019 should be quite different than it was in 1979 because of how much the reality that thinking and policy is supposed to reflect has changed. It is not that complicated.
Mike
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/01/03/report-all-iranian-military-decisions-latin-america-ran-through-soleimani/
Harry,
The problem statement is “the NY Times has quoted anti-Iranian Iraqi’s (most likely a Sunni muslim with pro-US leanings) complaints”.
1. Most of us here don’t trust the NYT to be truthful as far as we could throw their printing plant.
2. I’m certain you could find an Iraqi with mixed feelings and complaints, just like you can find an American who supports Trump “but…”
3. How representative is the quoted anti-Iranian Iraqi? Is it a significant fraction? And — again — would we trust the NYT to tell us truthfully?
“Is that all ya got?”
Actually, something similar crossed my mind….
Trump, on hearing the news of the price placed on his Orange head, tweets:
“WHAT??? WHAT IS THIS??? I’m ONLY worth 80 million dollars to you guys?? ONLY 80 measly million?? What am I? Freakin’ chopped liver? You mullets can’t be serious. What is this carp?? OK, OK. Gloves are off. You guys WANT to rumble? OK. No Problemo. War? You GOT IT. Hey Pompeo. POMPEO!!!….”
“…Latin America…”
Hezbullah’s (i.e., Iran’s) huge, carefully choreographed and perniciously ominous presence in Latin America is just another very important reason why—for many of the usual suspects—Venezuela MUST be kept in the hands of Maduro and his thugs AND why US borders (especially the Mexican border, but not just) MUST be allowed to remain porous at all costs.
Jus’ sayin’…
Not to worry. All is not lost, not by long shot….
…though some countries do seem to be working remarkably diligently….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7854419/British-imam-says-aspires-like-Qassem-Soleimani-glowing-tribute.html
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/protesters-square-off-in-toronto-over-u-s-killing-of-irans-top-general
I just hope we dont end up permanently alienating people that we may need as allies.
Harry expresses here a general principle that stands to be weighed in any international relations conduct.
For instance, we may wonder whether British, Italian, and Australian services working with John Brennan to paint future Pres. Trump as an agent of Putin in the midst of a political campaign were thinking as carefully about “allies” they might need one day, or the niceties of violations of sovereign decisions: like who chooses our highest officeholders.
On a guess, it would not seem so. But then, nor was Brennan thinking he would be caught in the act, so these foreign spy services could have been put at an unwarranted ease on that account.
But by all means, let us think how Europeans may view our highhandedness next time we aim to kill the world’s most dangerous terror master.
Who is this foul-mouthed clown? [OM]
Neo– where is your NOTE on this post? Or isn’t this an insult?
Kai Akker
Late to the party it seems, Read the entire thread.
Read it before I posted. Do you have a point?
Kai Akker:
I clearly crossed the line with “clown” in the world of Kai, or maybe not.
LOL, forget it. Neo, disregard my query. Why did I stick my nose in there? I don’t envy Neo the chore of monitoring discussions. But that post of yours, om, followed immediately upon the one where Harry gets scolded, when he finally went 4letter after being taunted and ridiculed for much of the discussion. It seemed unfair to me that Harry got the 15-yard penalty for “insult” when there was a lot of it flying about. He was the one who got caught.
Barry Meislin on January 6, 2020 at 4:17 am said:
“Is that all ya got?”
Actually, something similar crossed my mind….
* * *
😉
CTH posted an old video of Bill Whittle where he channels Donald Trump 4 years before the MAGA election.
The section relevant to this topic is 8:00-12:00, but all of it is worth listening to, if you still want to know why we now have President Trump.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/04/considering-everything-watch-this-again-a-president-who-believes-in-his-message/
At 14:30 he predicts the 2016 election, only missed one small point.
In my role as “clown #1” I wish to say I take no offense in that. Nor would “fuck bark this” or “bark fuck that” be a problem, I think.
Nor to what I have recently learned (from a running gag on Tony Badran’s twitter) to view as [verbatim] “lol words” — which I read or interpret thusly: *lol* [silent pause] “words”.
This expresses merely my personal view.
Of course I spent the better part of my working life in another milieu — on construction job sites — where the best and widest variety of vulgarity was issued daily: being our delight to give and take.
Yet I recognize this isn’t that; house rules, and justly, happily so.
Still, when dumb is dumb, just say so, and so on. Don’t get too fussy.
These are turbulent times and, face it, none of us knows what’s coming down the pike.
No one.
But we all do our best….
And to make this a better world, to show the true face of America’s “better half”, and to demonstrate just how upset, how utterly distraught, the Islamic Republic’s true friends really are, Nancy Pelosi feels that this is the least she can do for that poor victim (of the beast in Washington), that special human being—brutally cut off before his time—now that he’s no longer among us….
In Memoriam:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-moves-to-limit-trumps-actions-in-iran-with-war-powers-resolution-vote
Indeed, “Requiescat in pace”
Heh. More empty gestures from the Queen of handwaving airdoodles, Speaker Mrs. “Tommy’s Girl” Nanny Pelo-si-D’Alesandro.
But has she heard the Persians are coming for SpongeBob?
https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/1214176994885341184
Come now Speaker, where’s your humanity?
I’ve stayed out of this largely because I really don’t have the level of knowledge needed to engage in this topic. But speaking in generalities, I don’t understand how Trump’s response is a problem. He is well within his rights to order the action, it was in immediate response to an attack on our soil (which an embassy is), and the target was an Iranian official in Iraq which either means he is operating without the approval of Iraq in which case the Iraqi government should not care, or he is operating with the approval of Iraq, in which case they lose the right to object to us taking action on Iraqi soil. They would be, by definition, harboring a someone who has attacked the United States.
Somehow over time, we have allowed our general policy to be, “If you attack us, we’ll grovel on our knees to make you stop being mad enough at us to attack us.” That’s absolutely absurd. We are dealing with an unrepentant dark ages ideology which would conquer the world if it could, and when it had appropriate technology compared to the armies of Europe, it made it all the way into France. There is nothing we can do to make them like us, other than convert or die. Our policy in the ME needs to be, “We will do business with you, but if you attack us in any way, we will smack you, hard.”
KyndyllG, I saw someone on twitter quoting the Men In Black line I’d been tempted to quote myself these past few days, to the effect Trump has put the US back in a “Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing” posture. Which, good.
All of the outrage from the left has mainly come from:
1) It happened without provocation.
2) OK, there was provocation, but since we’re the bad guys, always, in all occasions, in all times and places, we deserve it and should roll over and repeat, “Please, sir, I want some more,” until the attacks stop.
3) Yeah, admittedly, there was provocation, but when Trump takes any action, now matter how justified it would be if a Democrat did the same thing, it’s always wrong.
Obviously, the response to #1 is: “When someone attacks an embassy, it is a declaration of hostile intent, if not outright war.” The response to #2 is: “When someone attacks an embassy, it is a declaration of hostile intent, if not outright war, no matter how the two parties rate against each other on the victimhood scale.” And yes, the response to #3 is: “When someone attacks an embassy, it is a declaration of hostile intent, if not outright war, even if Trump is the president taking a retaliatory action.”
The area in which to debate is whether the parties killed in the retaliatory strike bear executive responsibility for the embassy attack.
As far as I’m concerned, Iran is a nation that only gets a provisional seat at the table of civilized nations, provisional on the government of Iran behaving like the leadership of a civilized modern nation. When the leadership is observed encouraging “Death to nations we don’t like!” and funding terrorist activity all over the ME and beyond, the rest of the world has a responsibility to put a foot down on it, not indulge it.
The next step should be sending a squadron of B-52s to Diego Garcia. Or a squadron of B-2s. Or both!
Richard Saunders on January 6, 2020 at 5:51 pm said:
The next step should be sending a squadron of B-52s to Diego Garcia.
* * *
Clairvoyant, much?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-deploys-b52-bombers-indian-ocean
Easy-peasy. That’s where they send BUFFs when they want to bomb somebody in the Middle or Far East and don’t want to get into an argument with our European allies(???) about whether we can or not.