Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Skroe]

Have you ever condemned his actions on this forum? Care to link? We'll wait.

By all account this was an overt act of war, as the United States was not attacked directly. That being said, there is certainly legal justification for this action being found (and I'm guessing presented to Congress today and/or within 48 hours). It will still greatly backfire.

I also have to wonder what information the DoD has that they obviously can't share with us. Something more than "there he is!" must have transpired to cause our reaction.

Iranian backed militias under instructions from Quuds force sacking the US embassy is something that cannot stand. That was justification enough for almost anything. That is the one rule of international relations that doesn’t get broken. Except by Iran that has never respected it.

That’s all the justification the US needed. It’s that big a deal. It’s as simple as that. Whether it is wise is a whole other discussion. But the way this conversation has gone shows people have gotten very used to the US taking blows and doing nothing, and not reminding all in sundry how things work.

[Endus]

Dunno about fine, if the US tries to fabricate some legal grounds to say this was okay/justified/etc then it will cause more harm than good with the international community. IMO the damage is already done so the white house should just own it, after all what is anyone gonna do about it?

The legal grounds are going to boil down to "does the president have the authority to order this, by himself?" I think it's clear that answer's going to be "yes".

The issue is that he attacked an ostensibly allied nation.

[matt4pack]

Iranian backed militias under instructions from Quuds force sacking the US embassy is something that cannot stand. That was justification enough for almost anything. That is the one rule of international relations that doesn’t get broken. Except by Iran that has never respected it.

That’s all the justification the US needed. It’s that big a deal. It’s as simple as that. Whether it is wise is a whole other discussion. But the way this conversation has gone shows people have gotten very used to the US taking blows and doing nothing, and not reminding all in sundry how things work.

What about overthrowing a democratically elected government and shooting down a civilian airliner?

[Endus]

Iranian backed militias under instructions from Quuds force sacking the US embassy is something that cannot stand. That was justification enough for almost anything. That is the one rule of international relations that doesn’t get broken. Except by Iran that has never respected it.

That’s all the justification the US needed. It’s that big a deal. It’s as simple as that. Whether it is wise is a whole other discussion. But the way this conversation has gone shows people have gotten very used to the US taking blows and doing nothing, and not reminding all in sundry how things work.

The attack on the embassy warranted a response, against Iran.

This was an attack on Iraqi soil, without Iraqi permission, targeting a busy civilian target. The issue isn't whether Suleiman should have been killed. It's whether they should have launched an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport to do it.

[Moadar]

I dont get the problem. Sulemani told Donald Turnip that they were ready to stand against him.

[LeGin Tufnel]

This is absolute madness.

This is unilateralism of the worst sort and should be roundly condemned, and not just by the usual suspects.

What on earth are they thinking? Is Trump hoping to boost his election chances by starting another Gulf war?

I don't see how Iran can fail to respond to this, which of course will lead to an overwhelming American response.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Have you ever condemned his actions on this forum? Care to link? We'll wait.

By all account this was an overt act of war, as the United States was not attacked directly. That being said, there is certainly legal justification for this action being found (and I'm guessing presented to Congress today and/or within 48 hours). It will still greatly backfire.

I also have to wonder what information the DoD has that they obviously can't share with us. Something more than "there he is!" must have transpired to cause our reaction.

The justification was imminent attacks against Americans.

[Endus]

I dont get the problem. Sulemani told Donald Turnip that they were ready to stand against him.

So you wouldn't care if China killed a Hong Kong resistance leader by launching an airstrike on their plane when it landed at Honolulu International Airport? That's just totally fine and the US should be totally okay with them doing that?

[Poe]

2020 started off nice it seems.

[Skroe]

Dunno about fine, if the US tries to fabricate some legal grounds to say this was okay/justified/etc then it will cause more harm than good with the international community. IMO the damage is already done so the white house should just own it, after all what is anyone gonna do about it?

Nothing. And that’s the point. You know who this sends a message to? Senior intelligence and unconventional warfare leaders in Russia, China, North Korea and more. The sky is a little bit more dangerous for all of them now.

For years after Russia’s attack on the US I said the US should covertly kill off any and all Russian hackers involved, even if they live in Russia through covert means. The concept that our enemies can strike the US with impunity and that we won’t do shit has gotten very out of hand.

This shows the US will act decivisely, take risks and hold individuals accountable. “Bigger than bin laden” is how security experts are putting it. Because the US sent an overdue message: none of you are safe (“you” being people like this guy).

This is what (re)building conventional deterrence looks like. I’m not really sure what folks want. They don’t want wars. They don’t want deterrence. They want diplomacy but that going anywhere without the fear of consequence should it fail isn’t very productive.

I think what folks want is a lack of noise. Not peace per say be calm. Problem is, we spent 25 years squandering the peace so that isn’t coming back any time soon.

I detest Trump. It is known. But this should have happened years ago. To quote Bill Clinton “just who is the fucking superpower anyway?”

The liberal international order is under threat precisely because the US let too many bad actors fester for too long. And now one is off the table. Hopefully the first of many.

[Moadar]

So you wouldn't care if China killed a Hong Kong resistance leader by launching an airstrike on their plane when it landed at Honolulu International Airport? That's just totally fine and the US should be totally okay with them doing that?

It would be up to the US, just as it will be up to Iraq to issue whatever statement or action they want. Iraq has barely been in control of Iraq and has had multiple factions operating inside for a bit so this shit isnt surprising.

[cubby]

Iranian backed militias under instructions from Quuds force sacking the US embassy is something that cannot stand. That was justification enough for almost anything. That is the one rule of international relations that doesn’t get broken. Except by Iran that has never respected it.

That’s all the justification the US needed. It’s that big a deal. It’s as simple as that. Whether it is wise is a whole other discussion. But the way this conversation has gone shows people have gotten very used to the US taking blows and doing nothing, and not reminding all in sundry how things work.

I wasn't aware that the link to the embassy attack in Iraq was so clearly linked to Quuds. Since that's the case, then yeah, the United States' attack was easily justified.

Agreed that we've gotta all too complacent with people attacking the U.S. and then doing nothing about it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is absolute madness.

This is unilateralism of the worst sort and should be roundly condemned, and not just by the usual suspects.

What on earth are they thinking? Is Trump hoping to boost his election chances by starting another Gulf war?

I don't see how Iran can fail to respond to this, which of course will lead to an overwhelming American response.

Iran attacked our embassy in Iraq through the Quuds. Iran essentially attacked us. I thought the link was much more tentative but it's not. The Iran General we killed was the Quud leader, IIRC.

[Skroe]

The attack on the embassy warranted a response, against Iran.

This was an attack on Iraqi soil, without Iraqi permission, targeting a busy civilian target. The issue isn't whether Suleiman should have been killed. It's whether they should have launched an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport to do it.

I think it is simply acting on the reality, which is that Iraq, like Syria, are mostly conceptual states that exist in theory what is really a loosely to in governed war zone.

It is a monument to the Us failure in Iraq that is the case, but the Iraqi governments authority over Iraq isn’t really a thing. It’s the militias that rule.

And I just want to point out when the US was contemplating striking inside Iran for downing our drone in international airspace - and we should have - people raised holy hell then too.

It really comes down to the fact that the US is going to restore deterrence across the world and some subset of folks are just going to be completely unsatisfied with the ways it goes about it. But it needs to happen.

Like really, would it have been better if some f/a-18s shot down his aircraft in international airspace over the Persian gulf before he landed? You and I know it would have broached a similar response.

The part that intelligence agencies around the works will notice is that the US’s up to the minute knowledge of his location was exceptional.

[beanman12345]

The justification was imminent attacks against Americans.

And how has this exactly stopped these supposed "imminent attacks." If anything now they are gauranteed.

[Poe]

This Iran/US bullshit has been boiling up all 2019, I'm not surprised it has came this far.

[Shadowferal]

..fucking wrong guy to target.
We've a bunch of soldiers in Iraq right now that weren't feeling comfortable...they sure as hell will feel a lot of heat. (The guy may not have been a hero, but he was herofied by the Iranians and even aided the US at times)

This stinks like the Syria pullout.

[Moadar]

And how has this exactly stopped these supposed "imminent attacks." If anything now they are gauranteed.

Supposedly Sulliman was irreplaceable and the attacks wont be so well planned or coordinated without him. He was the most interesting man in Iran.

[Edge-]

This was an attack on Iraqi soil, without Iraqi permission, targeting a busy civilian target. The issue isn't whether Suleiman should have been killed. It's whether they should have launched an airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport to do it.

This is the biggest issue at the moment, IMO. This is not the first time we've made move in Iraq without giving them a heads up, the previous time being Trumps visit to the troops. We should absolutely have given them the heads up and ideally at least gotten the all-clear from them.

[Skroe]

I wasn't aware that the link to the embassy attack in Iraq was so clearly linked to Quuds. Since that's the case, then yeah, the United States' attack was easily justified.

Agreed that we've gotta all too complacent with people attacking the U.S. and then doing nothing about it.

- - - Updated - - -



Iran attacked our embassy in Iraq through the Quuds. Iran essentially attacked us. I thought the link was much more tentative but it's not. The Iran General we killed was the Quud leader, IIRC.

So the order of events is broadly that the quuds force, lead by him, has done increasingly provactive things the par year. Consider the drone downing and the missile strikes in Saudi Arabia. Last week the US struck an Iranian backed militia in Iraq that had been causing problems. That militia, a Quuds proxy force, is the one that sacked the embassy, most likely directly on his orders.

He was growing increasingly brazen. The fact he would allow and encourage, and not constrain an attack on an Embassy just illustrates he figures he had a relatively free hand... escalation dominance in a word. He probably never thought the US would strike him directly. Typically not our style.

And that changed.

If the Iranian backed militia did almost anything else rather than attack an embassy, this Almost certainly wouldn’t have happened. But doing that is a very, very big deal and cannot be a normalized thing.

And now no nation state will dare attack a US embassy for some time, because who knows, we might drone one of their generals in retaliation for it. That is how things should be. Deterrence restored. And all it cost was one evil bastard getting blown to hell.

[Moadar]

This is the biggest issue at the moment, IMO. This is not the first time we've made move in Iraq without giving them a heads up, the previous time being Trumps visit to the troops. We should absolutely have given them the heads up and ideally at least gotten the all-clear from them.

Probably has a lot to do with not trusting them. Information could easily be slipped to screw up these types of things.