100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[superchuck500]

Whether the intelligence showed that there was an imminent attack or not, why does assassinating the second in command help? Why wouldn’t Iran be MORE likely to execute those plans after the assassination? We’re caught up in trying to determine whether Trump was lying or not, but barely analyzing whether the action made sense. Trump probably lied as usual, but people forgive all of his lies. Trump probably abused his power again by ordering a war act without consultation with congress, but his supporters don’t care. However does anyone think killing Soleimani deterred Iran from committing a war act on our embassies? They have more justification for attacking our embassies after we killed Soleimani.

That's the confounding part - yes, without an "imminent attack" justification it probably requires congressional consultation but those kinds of institutional parameters have never constrained Trump and given the nature of the issue, he could have just said it's already covered under existing authorizations.

Instead, the White House chose to characterize it as intelligence of imminent attack but that doesn't appear to be true and given that Trump has wanted to target Soleimani for some time (authorized it seven months ago after pushing it for more than a year), it's pretty clear there wasn't intelligence of an imminent attack. Then Trump pretty much admits that - and makes the admin reps who have been claiming it look ridiculous or call into question just exactly what's going on over there.

It has become a script for this administration: (1) do something controversial, (2) send officials out to claim some justification that is false (even when it's not really necessary), (3) double-down on the falsehood, (4) Trump personally admit the falsehood or claim some alternative justification, (5) evidence shows the original justification was false, (6) argue it doesn't matter anyway.

That same sequence has happened on numerous occasions.

 

[JimEverett]

That's the confounding part - yes, without an "imminent attack" justification it probably requires congressional consultation but those kinds of institutional parameters have never constrained Trump and given the nature of the issue, he could have just said it's already covered under existing authorizations.

Instead, the White House chose to characterize it as intelligence of imminent attack but that doesn't appear to be true and given that Trump has wanted to target Soleimani for some time (authorized it seven months ago after pushing it for more than a year), it's pretty clear there wasn't intelligence of an imminent attack. Then Trump pretty much admits that - and makes the admin reps who have been claiming it look ridiculous or call into question just exactly what's going on over there.

It has become a script for this administration: (1) do something controversial, (2) send officials out to claim some justification that is false (even when it's not really necessary), (3) double-down on the falsehood, (4) Trump personally admit the falsehood or claim some alternative justification, (5) evidence shows the original justification was false, (6) argue it doesn't matter anyway.

That same sequence has happened on numerous occasions.

When the DoD released its statement on the killing, I thought they did a good of job of providing for the basis of the killing, even though they focused heavily on the imminent threat. But I never understood why the Administation stuck to the imminent threat aspect as the, and the only, justification. The operation seems justified on other grounds.

 

[JimEverett]

And, you throw in the ridiculous and disastrous statement about targeting heritage/cultural sites, and you have a situation that the Administration could claim as a victory to one where Trump looks unhinged.

 

[Dadsdream]

Esper this morning saying that he never saw specific evidence of a threat to US embassies but he “believes the president” when he says there was a threat. What?! Why would the SECDEF not know?

Does the intelligence community also filter through the Sec of Def? Or isnt he in the same high level threat assessments / decision meetings?

Wow, he's really dancing around this one..

It's a more plausible lie than saying Trump was telling the truth and it covers his butt.

A Secretary of Defense who openly corrects the Commander-in-Chief won't remain in his position very long.

He may not always have the same brief from the Intel community that the president does . . . that varies from administration to administration and subject matter to subject matter.

The president has final classification authority, so he can compartmentalize information as he sees fit and only allow it to be seen by those he wishes. Nothing nefarious about that. It's just how it's done.

Lyndon Johnson shared next to nothing about Vietnam with Hubert Humphrey, for instance. Though he was vice president, Humphrey was so in the dark that he was shocked when Johnson told him to call off a planned speech calling for the halt of bombing North Vietnam.

“In fact, he told me that it would endanger American troops like his son-in-law and cost lives. I would have their blood on my hands,” Humphrey said. “He would denounce me publicly for playing politics with peace.”

“About fifteen minutes before I began my speech, I called President Johnson from the studio. I told him what I intended to say and he said curtly, ‘I gather you’re not asking my advice.’ I said that was true, but that I felt that there was nothing embarrassing to him in the speech and certainly nothing that would jeopardize peace negotiations. I said we had been in direct contact with Averell Harriman and that George Ball was there with me. Johnson said tartly and finally, ‘Well, you’re going to give the speech anyway. Thanks for calling, Hubert.’ And that was that.’”

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey on 30 September 1968

prde.upress.virginia.edu

See, we may think we know how these things work, but the reality is that it works the way the president makes it work. It's his choice, by design.

In my opinion, in this case our old buddy dtc is probably closer to the mark than the rest of us.

 

[superchuck500]

And, you throw in the ridiculous and disastrous statement about targeting heritage/cultural sites, and you have a situation that the Administration could claim as a victory to one where Trump looks unhinged.

Agree - it’s ironic that a leader that considers himself so good a public relations has an operation that routinely mismanages messaging.

Of course, his constituentency doesn’t care and when the critics are critical, they’re just “deranged.”

 

[Lapaz]

That's the confounding part - yes, without an "imminent attack" justification it probably requires congressional consultation but those kinds of institutional parameters have never constrained Trump and given the nature of the issue, he could have just said it's already covered under existing authorizations.

Instead, the White House chose to characterize it as intelligence of imminent attack but that doesn't appear to be true and given that Trump has wanted to target Soleimani for some time (authorized it seven months ago after pushing it for more than a year), it's pretty clear there wasn't intelligence of an imminent attack. Then Trump pretty much admits that - and makes the admin reps who have been claiming it look ridiculous or call into question just exactly what's going on over there.

It has become a script for this administration: (1) do something controversial, (2) send officials out to claim some justification that is false (even when it's not really necessary), (3) double-down on the falsehood, (4) Trump personally admit the falsehood or claim some alternative justification, (5) evidence shows the original justification was false, (6) argue it doesn't matter anyway.

That same sequence has happened on numerous occasions.

I still ask the question, if the threat was imminent, is the logical act to destroy assets that could attack you, or kill a leader that doesn't directly affect the ability to pursue the attack? I think it was probably not imminent, but focusing on that misses the point of what the logical next step should've been. That is an aspect of the questioning that is being left out of the discussion.

 

[Dadsdream]

I still ask the question, if the threat was imminent, is the logical act to destroy assets that could attack you, or kill a leader that doesn't directly affect the ability to pursue the attack? I think it was probably not imminent, but focusing on that misses the point of what the logical next step should've been. That is an aspect of the questioning that is being left out of the discussion.

Cut off the head of the snake . . .

 

[Archies Ghost]

I still ask the question, if the threat was imminent, is the logical act to destroy assets that could attack you, or kill a leader that doesn't directly affect the ability to pursue the attack? I think it was probably not imminent, but focusing on that misses the point of what the logical next step should've been. That is an aspect of the questioning that is being left out of the discussion.

Trump broke an unspoken rule.

For centuries, it has been okay to slaughter peasants in their thousands but princes and kings were often seen as bargaining chips and thus worth more alive.

Over time, this has morphed into an unwritten rule of warfare to avoid targeting "political" leaders.

Obviously, Soleimani considered himself in that protected class, as he was driving around in the open in the conflict zone.

I like everything about Trump changing the dynamic in this way. It will change the way those who would challenge the United States will operate and lets them all know they are, personally, fair game if they choose be present in the conflict zone.

It also puts US leadership in a position to also feel threatened when in theater and might just change the behavior that has resulted in a long series of never ending conflicts.

I would rather two Generals face each other with pistols at 10 paces to decide a conflict as opposed to killing a few thousand Americans and a hundred thousand of the other guy's kids during decades of pointless conflict.

I know it is very difficult for some to see anything positive emanating from Donald Trump but killing Soleimani should be a bright spot for anyone to see.

If Trump had responded by killing a few hundred anonymous Iranian proxy fighters in Iraq, what would have been accomplished and would anyone be behaving any differently?

If he is going to be pilloried from the left no matter what, I much prefer decisive action that is clearly different from what the US has been doing for 40 years against Iran.

 

[FullMonte]

Cut off the head of the snake . . .

Except that it doesn't really kill the snake in this case. To make an analogy, if the US military had an imminent attack planned on another country, killing our Secretary of Defense wouldn't affect that particular attack at all.

 

[samiam5211]

Except that it doesn't really kill the snake in this case. To make an analogy, if the US military had an imminent attack planned on another country, killing our Secretary of Defense wouldn't affect that particular attack at all.

If anything it would ensure we carried out the attack.

I do not believe that an attack was imminent, but if one was, it still is.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I do not believe that an attack was imminent, but if one was, it still is.

Well, seems there wasn't anything imminent at all. Seems the story has changed once again...

Washington (CNN)Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration's previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an "imminent" attack.

Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from ‘imminent’ threat to deterrence | CNN Politics

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration’s previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an “imminent” attack.

www.cnn.com

 

[FullMonte]

If anything it would ensure we carried out the attack.

I do not believe that an attack was imminent, but if one was, it still is.

I think it's very clear that there was no imminent attack:

--The SecDef repeatedly refused to confirm the president's statements that four of our embassies were being targeted
--The SecDef stated that he had not seen any evidence of any imminent threat to our embassies
--The State Dept has stated that they were not briefed about any threats to any of our embassies
--Trump stated today "it doesn't really matter ['whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was 'eminent' or not'] because of his horrible past!"

All of that adds up to a clear picture that there was no imminent attack planned.

 

[Dadsdream]

Except that it doesn't really kill the snake in this case. To make an analogy, if the US military had an imminent attack planned on another country, killing our Secretary of Defense wouldn't affect that particular attack at all.

This guy had turned into a rock star with the potential to displace the mullahs in the affections of the Iranian people.
He had gone off-script and was doing his own thing and that made the mullahs suspicious.
My take? They were glad we took him out.

 

[Dadsdream]

I think it's very clear that there was no imminent attack:

--The SecDef repeatedly refused to confirm the president's statements that four of our embassies were being targeted
--The SecDef stated that he had not seen any evidence of any imminent threat to our embassies
--The State Dept has stated that they were not briefed about any threats to any of our embassies
--Trump stated today "it doesn't really matter ['whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was 'eminent' or not'] because of his horrible past!"

All of that adds up to a clear picture that there was no imminent attack planned.

Uh, when in the past 20 years that he was commander of the Quds Force (international terrorism) branch of Iranian Republican Guard had Soleimani NOT had an imminent attack planned?

Answer: He ALWAYS had one in the works somewhere.

 

[Lapaz]

This guy had turned into a rock star with the potential to displace the mullahs in the affections of the Iranian people.
He had gone off-script and was doing his own thing and that made the mullahs suspicious.
My take? They were glad we took him out.

Except the next day the Republican guard named Soleimani’s replacement. The attack was nothing but a provocation that does nothing to reduce the “imminent” threat. That doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been assassinated, but it is illogical to think this eliminated any imminent threat. The imminent threat would be addressed by taking out assets needed to execute the attack. This doesn’t equate to killing a couple of hundred Reputation guardsman. Assets needed are airplanes, ammunition, etc. The lack of logic for eliminating any imminence further reinforces the abuse of not consulting with congress before taking an act of war.

 

[Lapaz]

Uh, when in the past 20 years that he was commander of the Quds Force (international terrorism) branch of Iranian Republican Guard had Soleimani NOT had an imminent attack planned?

Answer: He ALWAYS had one in the works somewhere.

You’re right, which is why Trump or any other president should consult with congress before attacking a country’s leaders. This is another escalation of presidential power and unconstitutional.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Uh, when in the past 20 years that he was commander of the Quds Force (international terrorism) branch of Iranian Republican Guard had Soleimani NOT had an imminent attack planned?

Answer: He ALWAYS had one in the works somewhere.

That's not the definition of imminent.

We currently have plans to take out any number of sites in China, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. Does that mean we're going to attack now? Of course not.

 

[Dadsdream]

That's not the definition of imminent.

We currently have plans to take out any number of sites in China, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. Does that mean we're going to attack now? Of course not.

Oh, we've got a lot more than that! We've got war plans from the War College for every possible place on the planet . . . except Grenada. We had to use Texaco tourist maps from the 1950s for Grenada. I'm not kidding.