Everybody’s abuzz about this Qassem Soleimani business. I don’t have much to say about it, but I’ll say this:
First, it’s amusing that some parties seem so persnickety about the legality of striking down a man who made his career in terrorism and assassinations all over the globe.
Second, I’m having a hard time seeing the legal issue here. We struck Mr. Soleimani in Iraq, where our forces are deployed at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Mr. Soleimani was there as the commander of a hostile military force, and had just organized an attack on our embassy. For us to retaliate against a dangerous enemy was well within the scope of the U.S. mission.
Third, it’s worth noting that given the choice of siding with the Chief Executive of the United States, a great many over on the Blue side of the aisle would prefer to stick up for a man who organized the killing and maiming of thousands of American soldiers — not to mention political dissidents in Iran — and for the unholy regime that signed his paychecks. I don’t recall hearing any such fuss from them when Barack Obama vaporized a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in similar fashion.
Fourth, there seems to be some concern that now the Iranians are really going to be angry at us. They weren’t already?
Fifth, this may well be an importantly destabilizing event as far as the internal affairs of Iran are concerned. That would be just fine with just about everybody, except perhaps Valerie Jarrett and a few others I could think of.
Sixth, it’s refreshing to see a U.S. Commander in Chief treating our mortal enemies like mortal enemies, instead of sending them pallets of Benjamins in the dead of night in the hope that they’ll make nice.
Seventh, I doubt very much that this will lead to war. I’m hoping for a Mideast foreign policy in which we no longer attempt to convert seething Islamic snakepits into little Denmarks, but are resolved to make sure they understand that we are prepared at all times to cause excruciating pain if they try to harm us.
If I were Donald Trump, I’d have two words for Iran right now:
“Any questions?”
11 Comments
I’m shedding no tears for this guy, and I’ve had my fill of laughs at the Democrats reflexively siding with a Hostile Foreign Power against their real enemies at home (that’d be you and me).
But we were pretty confident that the Taliban and Iraq couldn’t give us any trouble, and we were wrong. We’re not good at this asymmetrical stuff, not for over a century now. Part of that is that our media and our real permanent government see their real enemy as the American people (the real American people, not Somali settlers dumped in Maine a week ago). Part of it is that our military, like us, is old, fat, rich, stupid, bureaucratic, overconfident, and “diverse”.
I don’t want to escalate anything with those guys. Maybe we have no choice. But I don’t have to like it.
Americans were invited to Iraq, just like the Russians were “invited” to Czechoslovakia in 1968.
https://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/2020/01/heh_3.html
Wilbur,
I certainly don’t want to “go to war” with Iran in the sense of invading and occupying the place. (I don’t think most Americans do either, including Donald Trump.)
I have, however, no problem at all with reminding them, when necessary, that doing us harm will be repaid with interest. I’m glad we now have someone in charge who doesn’t think “repaying them with interest” involves airlifting stacks of cash.
Hun,
I understand your point, but the comparison is not exactly apt. I don’t, for example, recall the Russians withdrawing troops because they couldn’t negotiate a SOFA agreement with their puppet in Prague, and they weren’t “invited” back to Czechoslovakia because a rogue army was running around the countryside beheading people.
My point was that striking Soleimani in Iraq, where he was arriving to coordinate hostile action against both the U.S. and the Iraqi government (even though that is admittedly somewhat redundant), is a different thing from having assassinated him in Iran.
This is one of those times when one rather has to choose sides. It has been illuminating to see that happening in Washington.
Yup.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/what-a-disgrace-dem-senator-blasts-trump-over-embassy-attack-leaving-americans-huddling-in-safe-rooms/
But that was then …
Chris Murphy on Twitter
And one last thing – I guess “It depends” on who gets murdered in Istanbul:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/did-russia-kill-white-helmets-founder-james-le-mesurier
Malcolm, surely you must be joking. The US has no business being in the Middle East in the first place. If you break and enter into somebody’s house and get attacked there, nothing you do can be classified as self-defense. Whatever you get is what you deserve.
Any agreement between the US and the Iraqi government is a joke. The US installed a puppet regime and then pointed a gun at them. Similarly, the Soviets were able to produce an invitation letter after they invaded Czechoslovakia.
Hun,
Baghdad is not Iran’s “house”.
Nor is it ours. I’d be thrilled to see us leave; perhaps we can agree on that.
JK, would you mind linking text, instead of dropping naked links into the comment-box? They tend to spill over.