Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[DarkTZeratul]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...-of-a-unifying

Apparently Trump thought that assassinating a foreign official, even if he was designated a terrorist, in a nation we're occupying, with no warning to Congress, Iraq, or anyone else, would be a "unifying event".

I literally have no idea why. This isn't a plain black and white situation no matter how much Trump and conservatives try to make it out to be. This is firmly one of the 50 shades of grey.

Because Trump has no concept of shades of gray, and is also enough of a narcissist to think that his ideas are amazing ones that everyone loves. In his mind, this was entirely black and white: Soleimani bad, killing him good, adulation to follow. Nuance and mitigating circumstances need to not apply.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/polit...eat/index.html

So the threat from Solemain was "imminent". How "imminent"? Pompeo won't say.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...leimani-strike

Speaking to a crowd in Toledo, Trump railed against a vote in the Democratically-controlled house to limit his use of military force — and defended his strike on Qassem Soleimani last week that dramatically escalated tensions between the United States and Iran. “He was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad,” Trump claimed of the top general. “But we stopped him very quickly and we stopped him cold.” That Soleimani was plotting attacks on U.S. embassies may have been news to Democratic lawmakers, who have suggested that the president’s team had shared no such information with them in a classified briefing this week.

That, of course, raises two troubling possibilities: That Trump disclosed to his raucous rally crowd classified information he kept even from lawmakers, or he’s making stuff up as he goes along. “You have [the president's advisers] saying they can't provide this kind of information to senators in a highly classified setting, but the president is going to say that to the country,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said on MSNBC Thursday. “It just shows how they're making this up as they go. They would have presented that kind of evidence yesterday if they had it.”

So, either Trump is yet again sharing classified information in public, or he's completely making shit up.

Neither option is good. They're both bad.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...feb_story.html

New reporting indicates that there was apparently a second operation targeting another senior Iranian official the same night Sulemain was killed. Not too familiar with Abdul Reza Shahlai, who apparently financially backs and helps lead the Quds Force, but he was the target.

Now there's thinking there may have been a broader operation, but since the Trump administration doesn't seem interested in telling members of Congress pretty much anything I guess we'll have to rely on media reporting.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...leimani-killed

Ignore the site, it's reporting on a Wall Street Journal article that's paywalled, and linked inside for anyone with a subscription. But...

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that following the drone strike on Soleimani last week, Trump told unspecified associates "he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate."

So this may not have just been a distraction, but an attempt to secure votes in his favor for impeachment.

If this is true, he needs to be removed now. He undertook a strike against a foreign government official in an ostensibly allied territory, even if that official was designated a terrorist, not to further US interests or protect US citizens, but to help his own impeachment defense.

[Themius]

My fucking god...

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/s...72265695776768

And in today's episode of, "What I really meant...", Republican Rep. Doug Collins is walking back his "Democrats are in love with terrorists" comment.

Why? In part because was reminded by Democrat Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who actually served in Iraq, that she literally left parts of her body in the country while fighting terrorists - https://www.thedailybeast.com/tammy-...ing-terrorists

Because unsurprisingly, Doug Collins is a piece of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...reat-from-iran

Asked specifically what was targeted, Trump revealed: “We will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad.”

Pressed on whether large-scale attacks were planned for other embassies, the president said: “I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies.”

10/10 intelligence and analysis. Not conclusive intelligence apparently. Also not shared with Congress, who were scratching their heads about these attacks. But I guess we'll just reveal that publicly on State TV.

[Elegiac]

10/10 intelligence and analysis. Not conclusive intelligence apparently. Also not shared with Congress, who were scratching their heads about these attacks. But I guess we'll just reveal that publicly on State TV.

Yeah next he's gonna tell us it was gonna be 9/11 times a hundred.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yeah next he's gonna tell us it was gonna be 9/11 times a hundred.

No... Not ninety-one thousand, one hundred!

[Elegiac]

No... Not ninety-one thousand, one hundred!

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that most of the Iraq War era memes are now becoming relevant again.

[Kellhound]

Well...

This morning when I opened up my computer, there is an article on a Finnish news site where an expert is saying it's possible the plane was shot down by "terrorists", because it looks like it wasn't shot down with SA-15, but some smaller manpad, which would indicate non-governmental troops.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/...4-516bee15baf7

So I'm not the only one keeping his eyes, ears and mind open before dismissing such a possibility.

The lack of any comms from the plane post impact points to the missile having a much larger warhead than a SA-7/14/16/18/24/25.

[Skroe]

I mean, Pompeo is stepping into it because amateur hour White House is run by imbeciles.

The rationale for sending Soleimani to hell isn't on the things he probably, hypothetically would do one day. Of course he was planning shady terrorist shit. His entire job was to plan shit to advance Iran's interests since he was head of, you know, Iran's Chief Shady Terrorist Shit Government Agency. That's like saying "we killed the wolf because it may prey on the sheep". No shit. It's what wolfs do.

The right reason to kill Soleimani is because of shady terrorist shit he already did. In fact, that's why he should have gotten his one way ticket to the bad place 15 years ago. You killed the wolf because he killed sheep.

This White House can't message to save its life and it's hilarious. By chosing the route of nebulous "imminent threat" nonsense, Pompeo has to at best, stretch the truth. At worst outright lie. And he creates a situation where WHite House credibility - already basically worthless - somehow finds a new low because we have no reason to believe them due to their other performance failures, and if there is actual evidence hat there was a bonafied legitimate thread, they won't share it because it would likely endanger sources. So he boxed himself and the White House in by basically saying "trust me", even though only the Trumphadis Trust him.

By contrast, if they said "we gave him his long overdue vacation with Satan for shit he did previously"... what of it? Almost no one will die on that hill. Who is going to argue that Soleimani should live? No one. At worst, Europeans would be concerned about precedent and some Americans on the left would prick the Administration about the legal basis for doing it for a week... but because there is no win condition in fighting for Soleimani's supposed right-to-life, they'd soon give it up. Pompeo would just have to around saying "the world's a better place with this asshole dead, and he had it coming for a long time, and we took the shot. Message to America's enemies: we WILL catch up with you at a time and place of our choose."

But no. Now we're in the land of "what do words like 'imminent threat' mean".

Idiots.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...an-we-thought/

Shahlai is operating in Yemen, meaning the conflict he is waging at the moment is less against the United States than against Saudi Arabia, which is engaged in a war in Yemen against Iran-backed rebels with our support.

In recent statements, administration officials have noted Shahlai’s role in a 2007 attack on American soldiers in Iraq, his support of Houthi rebels in Yemen, and his “long history of involvement in attacks targeting the U.S. and our allies."

But if someone like Shahlai was planning to attack American forces -- let’s say “imminently” -- Yemen wouldn’t be the place to do it. Which suggests this may have been part of a broader operation to kill Iranian military leaders.

Op-ed on WashPo points out that the reports of a second, failed attempt to take out another high ranking Iranian sponsor of terror in another country completely undermines the Trump administrations "Imminent threat" narrative, as there's no way he was any "imminent threat" to any US forces that don't exist in the region.

[Skroe]

By the way, I just want to throw down the gauntlet to some folks (you know who you are) on the subject of deterrence.

This is from someone who is a Professor of National Security Affairs specializing on Russia, strategy and international affairs at the US Naval War College and Harvard. Also big time anti-Trump guy. Also a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In other words he knows what he is talking about and you do not.



This is from Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading political risk consultancy firm, and a Fellow at NYU, Columbia and the World Policy Institute specializing on strategic matters in foreign policy.









Short version: two different experts saying deterrence worked, big time. A modest win for the US. And there is an opening here for diplomacy (that Trump won't take). But this is not nearly over.

Remember folks: you may not have liked what I said about deterrence because it offends your sensibilities about the way the world should be, but 3 years of saying "fuck your feelings" with regards to objective reality to the Trumphadis doesn't buy the anti-Trump side a Get-Out-Of-Reality-Free card for a topic of their choosing.

Or is it going to take another well intentioned by hopelessly naive liberal President being brutalized by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, like Barack Obama was, to drive the point home that it takes two to tango, and one player - in this case the US - doesn't get to decide how international affairs to to be conducted? This is a nasty business and if you aren't equipped to stomach it, stick to your wheel house like healthcare and jobs. The most revealing thing Obama ever said about his world view was when he chastized Putin for "19th century foreign policy" in Ukraine. Except it was also 18th century, 20th century, 10th century, 1st century and last but not least, 21st century foreign policy... and the POTUS doesn't get a vote on that matter.

That is why things like deterrence and sending the bad guys to hell via a missile, is necessary and a positive part of shaping an international scene ameniable to America's national interests.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...an-we-thought/



Op-ed on WashPo points out that the reports of a second, failed attempt to take out another high ranking Iranian sponsor of terror in another country completely undermines the Trump administrations "Imminent threat" narrative, as there's no way he was any "imminent threat" to any US forces that don't exist in the region.

Of course neither were an imminent threat.

But who cares? It's just needling the Trump Administration. There is no win condition in getting in a tangle with them over this. Nobody is going to drop support of Trump or hold him accountable, anywhere, for killing some Iranian intelligence guys.

This is a stupid, stupid, stupid thing Anti-Trump seems hell bent on doing for no reason other than not allowing Trump a modest win. Especially one that is in the US's national interests. Bush and Obama were dead wrong in not killing this guy years ago. We should be doing a lot more of them.

For example... the Mueller report gave us a list of dozens of Russians involved in the 2016 hack. Can I count on the next democratic President to make sure every single one of them pays for it with their lives. Or at the very least, if they ever so much as step foot out side of Russia, the CIA hits them over the head with a bat, stuffs them in a dufflebag and flies them to a detention cell in Virginia?

You want to stop aggression on the United States? You make the people doing it pay for it. Every single person operationally involved in the 2016 attacks should die one day, and if not that, be secreted to one of our deepest, darkest prisons. That is the payment that that type of business deserves.

He is allowed modest wins. It doesn't change the equation fundamentally. We still have him where we want him. But the more salient thing is that the US has a backlog of people like Soleimani that need to be taken off the board, one way or another.

[starlord]

takes a lot of mental gymnastics to call iran bombing our base after trashing our embassy a win for deterrence.

us doing nothing in return is a tacit admission that yes, we fucked up.

[Skroe]

takes a lot of mental gymnastics to call iran bombing our base after trashing our embassy a win for deterrence.

us doing nothing in return is a tacit admission that yes, we fucked up.

Donald Trump rejects subject experts position on the topic: It's an outrage! We have to listen to the experts opinion on the issue!

starlord and co rejects experts position on the topic: the experts are engaging in a lot of mental gymnastics to call this a win.

Have I been wasting my time with my real life anti-Trump efforts the past three years? Are you folks just cut from the same cloth of wanting reality to confirm your prejudices?

You know one of the people I quoted wrote a book about this:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Experti.../dp/0190469412
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
by Tom Nichols, the first expert I quoted.

It's really, really good. It reads like an indictment your folks position on deterrence.

here's the synopsis

Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement.

When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both. An update to the 2017breakout hit, the paperback edition of The Death of Expertise provides a new foreword to cover the alarming exacerbation of these trends in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election. Judging from events on the ground since it first published, The Death of Expertise issues a warning about the stability and survival of modern democracy in the Information Age that is even more important today.

This is why when I quote stuff, I almost always refer to subject matter experts (remember: I quoted David Petraeus on the deterrence topic last weekend, and people came up with rationalizations about why to ignore him). Because I am not an expert. But I know who the experts are.

If you want more experts on how this was a modest win and helped refortify deterrence, I'd be happy to share.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...776_story.html

Huh, maybe the Gaetz vote wasn't planned after all. I can't say I'm super surprised given Trump's ego and his inability to understand the nuance and political benefit to letting Gaetz vote like this on a functionally meaningless piece of paper, but I'm legit surprised if Gaetz decided to publicly buck Trump.

That or this is part of the same performance art.

[starlord]

Donald Trump rejects subject experts position on the topic: It's an outrage! We have to listen to the experts opinion on the issue!

starlord and co rejects experts position on the topic: the experts are engaging in a lot of mental gymnastics to call this a win.

Have I been wasting my time with my real life anti-Trump efforts the past three years? Are you folks just cut from the same cloth of wanting reality to confirm your prejudices?

You know one of the people I quoted wrote a book about this:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Experti.../dp/0190469412
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters


It's really, really good. It reads like your folks position on deterrence.

here's the synopsis



This is why when I quote stuff, I almost always refer to subject matter experts (remember: I quoted David Petraeus on the deterrence topic last weekend, and people came up with rationalizations about why to ignore him). Because I am not an expert. But I know who the experts are.

If you want more experts on how this was a modest win and helped refortify deterrence, I'd be happy to share.

i am reminded how one news outlet had 2 articles showing how experts agreed it was/wasn't the right thing to do.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...ssem-soleimani

https://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/8/2..._gl=1*1n05nts*

its apparently quite a subjective topic.

deterrence, like any tool, must be the right one for the job, and used in the proper manner.

look at what actually happened - they pushed us, we pushed back, they pushed back harder.
and then we backed down.
i said in another post that if we want to use threats as a negotiating tactic we have to be willing to follow through for it to be effective.
that's why i said trump pushed too much too early. he eliminated one of the biggest "trump cards" he had available in a pointless display of power.

[Draco-Onis]

I mean, Pompeo is stepping into it because amateur hour White House is run by imbeciles.

The rationale for sending Soleimani to hell isn't on the things he probably, hypothetically would do one day. Of course he was planning shady terrorist shit. His entire job was to plan shit to advance Iran's interests since he was head of, you know, Iran's Chief Shady Terrorist Shit Government Agency. That's like saying "we killed the wolf because it may prey on the sheep". No shit. It's what wolfs do.

The right reason to kill Soleimani is because of shady terrorist shit he already did. In fact, that's why he should have gotten his one way ticket to the bad place 15 years ago. You killed the wolf because he killed sheep.

This White House can't message to save its life and it's hilarious. By chosing the route of nebulous "imminent threat" nonsense, Pompeo has to at best, stretch the truth. At worst outright lie. And he creates a situation where WHite House credibility - already basically worthless - somehow finds a new low because we have no reason to believe them due to their other performance failures, and if there is actual evidence hat there was a bonafied legitimate thread, they won't share it because it would likely endanger sources. So he boxed himself and the White House in by basically saying "trust me", even though only the Trumphadis Trust him.

By contrast, if they said "we gave him his long overdue vacation with Satan for shit he did previously"... what of it? Almost no one will die on that hill. Who is going to argue that Soleimani should live? No one. At worst, Europeans would be concerned about precedent and some Americans on the left would prick the Administration about the legal basis for doing it for a week... but because there is no win condition in fighting for Soleimani's supposed right-to-life, they'd soon give it up. Pompeo would just have to around saying "the world's a better place with this asshole dead, and he had it coming for a long time, and we took the shot. Message to America's enemies: we WILL catch up with you at a time and place of our choose."

But no. Now we're in the land of "what do words like 'imminent threat' mean".

Idiots.

Because if he told the truth it would be another article of impeachment because it violates the law and would constitute abuse of power? yea no one would die on a hill for it but the US government turning into ISIS isn't something anyone who values the constitution wants.

- - - Updated - - -

Donald Trump rejects subject experts position on the topic: It's an outrage! We have to listen to the experts opinion on the issue!

starlord and co rejects experts position on the topic: the experts are engaging in a lot of mental gymnastics to call this a win.

Have I been wasting my time with my real life anti-Trump efforts the past three years? Are you folks just cut from the same cloth of wanting reality to confirm your prejudices?

You know one of the people I quoted wrote a book about this:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Experti.../dp/0190469412
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
by Tom Nichols, the first expert I quoted.

It's really, really good. It reads like an indictment your folks position on deterrence.

here's the synopsis



This is why when I quote stuff, I almost always refer to subject matter experts (remember: I quoted David Petraeus on the deterrence topic last weekend, and people came up with rationalizations about why to ignore him). Because I am not an expert. But I know who the experts are.

If you want more experts on how this was a modest win and helped refortify deterrence, I'd be happy to share.

A lot of these "experts" are the clown cars that sold us the Iraq war...

[Kiri]

This is a stupid, stupid, stupid thing Anti-Trump seems hell bent on doing for no reason other than not allowing Trump a modest win. Especially one that is in the US's national interests. Bush and Obama were dead wrong in not killing this guy years ago. We should be doing a lot more of them.

There may be some correlation between a distrust of Trump and not seeing it as a win, but it's not necessarily the sole, or even strongest motivation. I personally would argue that yes, the US gained something, mostly because Iran was such a rational player. But in my opinion, the costs may outweigh the gains, simply due to this not being an exclusively two-player game, and in the broader context of things.

For one, it pushes the US further into the role of a forceful nation. One of the big selling points for following US hegemony has been that it has been more of a reasonable player, one that is willing to cooperate, rather than coerce. Even if Iraq, for example, doesn't expel US troops, that is likely because of a security need than any actual spirit of cooperation. Everyone between the big powers has seen this move, has seen that the US is perfectly willing to drone perceived enemies brazenly like that, not even putting on a veneer of deniability. That kind of power almost solely in the hands of an erratic president who might even be more emboldened if he gets a second term can easily chill relations with allies.

For the other, yeah, I know your views on the war on terror, but it just gives those recruiting there more fodder. Never a good thing. Yes, it won't somehow destroy the US. But real people still die to terrorism, and this doesn't do much to quell it. Heck, probably not even to diminish Iran-backed stuff. They will just get craftier at it.

And finally, I think that the deterrence here doesn't really hit where it counts. I tend to focus on China, since you often bring up how the US-China conflict will become/is the most important one of our time. But this doesn't really send the right signal. Especially in conjunction with the Mueller report thing you noted.
Trump did not retaliate against Russia (much, aside from some sanctions needed to sign). He did not truly make them pay for an attack on your elections. But he did make Iran pay for the relatively minor sleight in Iraq. Probably in a way that was overcompensating. And yet, he left it at that. That doesn't necessarily show "if anyone crosses the US, they will pay!", it can easily be taken as "if anyone weaker than us crosses the US, they will pay, as long as we don't have to commit too much. But if anyone closer to our level crosses the US, they won't have to pay". Will it be? I am certainly unqualified to say that. But I haven't really seen signs to the contrary, either. Hence, I don't see it as much as a win there.

It's important to note that none of that is probably going to have some massive, profound impact. My point is more that it is a diluted at best win that doesn't fully address the underlying issues to a satisfying degree and might have expended more political capital than necessary. A second-best move at best. Which is kind of emblematic for the Trump admin in general. They do at least sometimes do useful things, but seldom really in the best way possible, and often to solve issues they created in the first place.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tforms-936276/

Doug Collins, playing to the Fox audience, refused to apologize for his comments while on the channel.

But he did apologize on Twitter, where the Fox audience doesn't usually hang out.

Is he gaming the media system? You bet your ass he is.

[Thekri]

A lot of these "experts" are the clown cars that sold us the Iraq war...

Well that, but more to the point is the reason that people don't trust "Experts" any more. Because their integrity is for sale. There isn't some sort of sinister campaign against expertise, people just noticed that Nutrition experts that work for Kelloggs seem to be a lot more fine with High Fructose Corn Syrup then traditional medicines. Climate Scientists that work for BP seem to have a pretty rosy view of fossil fuels. And Generals and "National Security" scholars tend to be on the payroll of big think tanks, which get their money from the companies that build actual tanks.

If you want "Experts" that get respected, start by figuring out who owns them. Tom Nichols, the guy Skroe quoted? He is/was a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is one of the largest think tanks. Lets see where they get their money from...

For fiscal year 2013, CSIS had an operating revenue of US$32.3 million. The sources were 32% corporate, 29% foundation, 19% government, 9% individuals, 5% endowment, and 6% other. CSIS had operating expenses of US$32.2 million for 2013 — 78% for programs, 16% for administration, and 6% for development.[53]
In September 2014, The New York Times reported that the United Arab Emirates had donated a sum greater than $1 million to the organization. Additionally, CSIS has received an undisclosed amount of funding from Japan through the government-funded Japan External Trade Organization, as well as from Norway. After being contacted by the Times, CSIS released a list of foreign state donors, listing 13 governments including those of Germany and China.[54] The Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS lists major funding from defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and General Atomics.[55]

Hmmm, yes. Please stop stuffing $100 bills from the UAE and Lockheed Martin in your pocket before you start whining about nobody taking your opinions seriously. I am not saying he is wrong, I generally agree with a lot of what he writes, but I am going to take everything he says with a huge grain of salt, because I know who is paying the mortgage on his house.

[Omega10]

takes a lot of mental gymnastics to call iran bombing our base after trashing our embassy a win for deterrence.

us doing nothing in return is a tacit admission that yes, we fucked up.

Before: People in Iraq were protesting in front of the Iranian embassy and working on how to reduce Iranian influence in their country.
After: People in Iraq are focusing on how to get the US out of their country.

This does not sound much like a win for the US to me.