You haven’t contradicted anything I said here; on the contrary you’ve reinforced my statement that the US wins in the short, kinetic timeframe. Just as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and went on to get shredded in the insurgency/terrorism battle.
Iran is probably the most capable/decentralized/experienced foe the US has ever faced in this regard.
The US couldn’t even defeat the Taliban FFS, how do you think they’re going to face a Quds apparatus that operates from Tehran to Lebanon?
Oh come off it. The merits of the decision (or mistake) may have been foolish, but he was a senior officer of an adversary inside an active war zone and hence a perfectly legitimate target under any rule of war you can think off.
Now, the flip side is that so are US Generals.
Before we all jump on the bashing Trump bandwagon and being a foreigner to US military policies, how likely is that Trump just woke up in the morning and said to his Generals to take the guy out or in the other hand, the generals came to him and exposed a plan a reason why the guy should be taken out now and Trump agreed to it based on that?
He also had another secret phone call with Putin 2 days ago. That’s just as likely a reason.
If by “of consequence” you mean that it wasn’t something like a world war, that’s true but also sort of okay by me - since we haven’t lost any of those either.
We did win the Cold War and one might argue that the coldness is a pretty decent measure of quality in our military. Similarly, the lack of World Wars could be viewed as a measure of success.
And, we certainly won Operation Desert Storm and could have “won” both Iraq and Afghanistan if we had the same level of goal as we did with Operation Desert Storm.
I wonder if the caption on this comic wouldn’t work in Hebrew as well as English…
When I look at look at Putin’s Russia and Trump’s USA in 2020, I’m not nearly as confident in that statement as you seem to be.
Putin is alright with anything that helps maintain the status quo, in terms of helping to support a player or knocking them down a peg. But he doesn’t want more than that - small balancing acts. He won’t want an actual war.
I’ll throw in to my previous prediction that if Putin does stop the war from escalating, secretly, there’s a good likelihood that Congress will remove a sanction or two (probably on a business or person close to Putin) as a thanks.
Almost certainly Trump is too cowardly to start this on his own. Most likely he saw coverage of the embassy siege on Fox News, figured it would affect him badly, asked his generals “who do we hit”, and they gave him the best options they had. Hell, there’s even a chance that someone else was the real target and they hit Soleimani unintentionally.
I don’t see how that changes the stupidity of this whole calculation. And my criticism is not so much about yesterday’s decision… there’s a lot about it that we don’t know. But we do know that Trump shredded the diplomatic framework that was keeping both parties from shooting instead of talking. We know that, at every step, Trump’s decisions have pushed us into a place where every decision is more risky and uncertain. So this is really not just a single, sudden bad decision, but the culmination of a yearslong process of slowly taking every good decision off the table.
But, Grenada is now free!
It’s reasonable to say that we let it all hang out after that.
Seriously, WTF?!
If Iran were to deliberately kill a U.S. general in Iraq, we’d regard it as an act of war, as we damn well should.
Same thing goes the other way. Iran and Iraq may not have a formal alliance, but they are on good terms with one another and cooperate on military operations, including eliminating ISIS’ territorial control within Iraq, which Suleiman was very much a part of. This was very much an act of war.
While Iraq is hardly the safest place in the world, could you tell me what war is going on there? Please to cite that it’s an “active war zone.”
Desert Storm merely restored the status quo, was with massive global support, and… given we fought Iraq in 2002… can’t be called a long-term success.
There are many reasons for the US winning the Cold War, true. US Military competence in leading US troops into combat to achieve strategic geopolitical goals was not one of them, however.
Putin wants to remain leader of Russia. An easy way to do this is jack up oil prices. This morning, WTI futures are up 4.5%.
Two previous administration had that option and did not exercise it. To that extent, it was hardly Trump’s idea to target Suleimani. I’m pretty certain that on any given day, any number of enemy targets are evaluated by US intelligence for potential action. No doubt the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad raised Suleimani’s prominence as a target.
What is worthy of speculation and debate is whether there was sufficient justification to take him out now compared to previous opportunities to do so. And ultimately, Trump’s motives for doing so. Were the imminent threats to American targets abroad credible, as cited by Pompeo? I don’t know if we have the answer to that at this time.
The analogy was regarding Soleimani’s importance to Iran, not the legalities of targeting him.
Iran has been only one step removed from hundreds of service member deaths in the Middle East. That they haven’t deliberately targeted a US general and carried out the attack themselves is faint praise indeed.
The attack on the US embassy in Iraq was also an act of war. I think it’s telling that the Iranian General in question was blown up standing next to a militia leader whose forces would have participated in this attack. So much for plausible deniability on Iran’s part, eh?
You’ve already acknowledged there is an ongoing campaign against ISIS (and other terrorist groups, too, right?). It may not be what you call “war,” but it’s not exactly what I would call “peace,” either. The name of ongoing operations in Iraq for the US, btw, is Inherent Resolve and there’s a military campaign medal for it.
I’m conflicted about this event only in as much as it’s a new level in the ongoing proxy (or not so proxy) war between the US and Iran.
That’s what the US would like to believe anyway, but Iran seems to be challenging us (How dare they!) and that explains the situation we’re now in.
Hm. I forgot he was up for election.
I saw something about him and …Belarus? recently, and some deal that would allow him to become the President of a new, enlarged Russia.
I’m guessing that Americans’ definition of an “act of war” isn’t necessarily shared and agreed upon by everyone else. Seems to me that trying to force out a global military power is a pretty logical thing to do when you consider that said superpower is a) on Iran’s doorstep; b) already indicated that it’s interested in toppling Iran’s regime; c) dictating Iraqi affairs from 8,000 miles away having no real justification for being there in the first place; and c) invited itself there by violating sovereignty and toppling a regime without international support.
Meanwhile, China’s sitting back with a big fat smile on their face, knowing that Mesopotamia and Persia will be the graveyard of the American hegemony.