I don’t think we can say Iraq anything. It’s not a house united. This is a Shia vs Sunni thing. I think the Sunni reluctantly want us there. The Iran l-friendly Shia want us gone. Allies indeed.You're not wondering. You know damn well. And you put forgot to use quotes with "ally." Iraq wants as muscle they can uses at their discretion or they want us out.
But then the targeted killing of Soleimani - which is undoubtedly an escalation - suggests we are either already in a shooting war or are willing to be.
Otherwise, what's the strategic reason for the destabilization? We have much to lose by either a withdrawal scenario or new, multi-front war.
"Target of Opportunity" carries the weight of shooting down a Japanese Admiral's plane in the Pacific.
I don’t think we can say Iraq anything. It’s not a house united. This is a Shia vs Sunni thing. I think the Sunni reluctantly want us there. The Iran l-friendly Shia want us gone. Allies indeed.
If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.This, like the CBS Special Report alert, overlooks the fact that the embassy attack was an overt act of war - which Iran then foolishly claimed. And, sent their top general to plan more mayhem in Iraq.
Iran overplayed their hand and banked upon the eternal restraint of the US and believed their own rhetoric that Trump is a paper tiger.
Both the "success" of their continual rocket attacks in finally killing an American and the attack on the embassy crossed red lines in the sand.
The mullahs and Soleimani were foolish in giving Trump/America to retaliate for the embassy attack in a very meaningful way that DOES NOT inspire the Iranian public to rally to the mullahs the way an attack on Iranian soil would.
Could be the president has called, time to put up or shut up
If Iraq doesn't want us there, they can tell us to leave and 'boom' off ramp to the Iraq war
If the Shias don't want us there, then they'll have to do all the heavy lifting if they don't want to be dominated by Iran or live in fear of being blown up by Sunni-aligned terrorist groups
People that think now Iraq will descend into chaos haven't been paying attention, and if we're not asked to leave we'll have a freer hand once the double-dealing Salih regime stares into the abyss for a bit. Tough to play both sides against each other when one side won't play
I thought that was a good idea at the time. I don’t think Trump is capable of seeing that through. He seems a bit too cozy with Turkey.That's a great point, too.
So maybe we should support a split of Iraq into 3rds, which was a good idea 20 years ago, and probably still is. We'll help support the Kurds and the Sunnis for as long as they'll have us.
I'm sure she could find her way to Iran if she really tried hard enough. Go there.Here's a bat**** crazy take from actress Rose McGowan
https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1212976832544460801
If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.
If the embassy attack was Pearl Harbor, so be it. But the history of shadow wars is not kind to the US.
Is that honestly a “bad” thing if he ordered it? Taking out a top general that operating against our forces in Iraq. Now, I opposed pulling out of the Iran deal, but that ship has sailed. Iran is now directlyputting American lives in danger. I might throw up, but I might have to give the president credit for something else.
CNBC: Op-Ed: America just took out a man many consider the world’s No. 1 bad guy
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/trump-just-took-out-the-worlds-biggest-bad-guy-qassim-soleimani.html
Very interesting read... if accurate, and my gut instinct says it is, Soleimani was the "mastermind" instrumental in implementing the mullahs' regional desires and leaves very difficult shoes to fill.
Also, the real focus should be on him being in Iraq immediately following the embassy attack, which focuses on he was planning Iran's next attack. Also, a large number of Iranians are feeling the economic pressure at home and do not support all of the money being spent abroad.
Bottom line, this was a strategic win... took out a strategic asset of Iran's adventurism that will not be easily, nor quickly replaced AND drives another wedge between the mullahs and a large number of everyday Iranians. The threat to the mullahs in further escalating is not just American retaliation - they crossed the line killing Americans and attacking the embassy - but also a revolt and coup.
I thought that was a good idea at the time. I don’t think Trump is capable of seeing that through. He seems a bit too cozy with Turkey.
If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.
If the embassy attack was Pearl Harbor, so be it. But the history of shadow wars is not kind to the US.
Well, the question needs to be asked. Why are we still in Iraq? It's obvious that they don't want us there, and it been that way for a while.
We are at constant war with whomever the executive chooses, for whatever reason the executive chooses, in whatever place the executive chooses...and we have been ever since we got the AUMF shoved down our gullets by the Bush administration in 2001.
We are on our third president with "Emergency" war powers.
If this were a movie, our goverment would definitely be the bad guys.
We are not at war with Iran. These retaliatory strikes give the mullahs a slight taste of what that would be like.
I do agree that POTUS should address the nation on who this terrorist was and why it was appropriate... and also to say that we are not at war with Iran or the Iranian people, nor do we wish to be... only the mullahs want that.
And, the embassy attack, while an "act of war" was definitely NOT a Pearl Harbor. But it was definitely more serious than proxy rocket-lobbing.
Anti-ship missiles in the straits of Hormuz, for example, would be something closer to that... of course, the mullahs have always had the resources to start an all-out war.
Whomever wrote that is an idiot. #1 bad guy in the world, and yet most of us (even me) had never heard of the guy until he was dead. At most, he's #2, because he still has to take orders from someone. Besides Rouhani, I think both Kim and Bin Salman are worse.
It IS a bad thing and here's why. Regardless if you like Trump or not, the USA just stood up to attacks on our service men in Iraq. Lead and supported by the terrorist we took down. This is time to stand together in support of America and not, within minutes, try to implicate Trump doing something very bad. Whose side are the media on?
There is a time for everything. That was not the time.
Shortly after the attack on our embassy, the left came out with statements that this was Trumps Benghazi. How inappropriate is that? If serviceperson were lost, they'd ball over Trump. No servicemen were lost and he responded in order to prevent further attacks; attacks that could certainly have been another Benghazi. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
The USA has been dealing with Iran for decades and we finally get a president who is standing up for America and we have people dragging him (and the USA) down. People need to be a part of what is right with America and stop with the hatred for Trump.
Well, the question needs to be asked. Why are we still in Iraq? It's obvious that they don't want us there, and it been that way for a while. The president ran on getting us out of the ME, and yet we're still there. Why? Maybe someone else with a higher pay grade knows, but I don't see what in our interest to stay there.