The Glade 4.0

Gobsmacked by Trump's assassination of General Soleimani. It only makes sense if he is starting an all out war with Iran.

While I consider it an idiot move, I'm interested in hearing your takes on it.

And go.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I agree with the idiotic assessment. I do not even believe he is trying to deflect attention from impeachment, I genuinely believe he is just stupid and short-sighted.

_________________

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/03/qasem-soleimani-killing-how-we-got-here/2802960001/

I'm good with it, given the reasoning offered. There have been other opportunities to attack Iran if the administration felt the desire to do so.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Oh no! Iran may declare war! ...and attack the mainlan... wait, not it won't. They won't do ****. I'm not a huge fan of our regime change wars or our massive overseas involvement, but if we're going to be there... at least present that you'll use your power. We don't need to invade to deter them. Solemani was responsible for enabling a lot of bad **** and people and they attacked our embassy. /shrug What can they do in response? You have to show strength and willingness to fight bullies. We have a guided missile for each Iranian cabinet member, maybe they should **** off? We don't need to nation build, only show a willingness to **** them up. That would have been the proper response in Afghan. The next time Omar the **** suggests blowing up US buildings they'll tackle him to the ground, because "last time the American **** us hard and coated their bullets in pig's blood."

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Here's my hot take...

...re the strategic wisdom of the strike:

I know this is incredibly wishy-washy, but I think there's a solid case to be made either way. On the one hand, Iran has clearly been escalating their involvement in, and fomenting of, proxy wars and militant attacks throughout the region for some time, and the standard US and international responses (sanctions, counter-escalation of proxy wars, cyber attacks, diplomatic pressure, etc.) seem to have been more or less priced into the Iranian calculus in advance, so a "WTF?!" strike like this may have been necessary to achieve the desired deterrent effect. On the other hand, the Iranian regime has been steadily losing legitimacy and support among its own people for years now, and this kind of direct foreign attack is almost certainly going to stall that trend due to s "rally around the flag" effect, so it might have been wiser to remain patient and continue to play the long game.

...re the domestic legal / institutional implications of the strike:

The case for this being authorized by Congress under the existing AUMFs is weak, and the Article II argument only works if the alleged "imminent threat" really existed, which...color me doubtful. Either way, though, it's yet another step down the road toward an imperial Presidency, so as a constitutional democracy, we really need to get our **** together and push Congress and the Court to start reasserting Congress's exclusive war powers.

...re the international law and diplomacy implications of the strike:

Since Soleimani was in Iraq at the time and almost certainly there for the purpose of coordinating with / assisting an enemy force in the field during active hostilities, it was arguably strictly legal under international law, although the Iraqi government's objection to the strike in advance muddies those waters a bit. However, the narrow legal argument isn't likely to matter as much as the perception that this was an assassination of a foreign leader in peacetime, and there's a definite risk to us of eroding the norm against targeted killing of senior leadership. All that said, I think I'm with Admiral Fitzwallace on this one (notwithstanding his romanticized description of medieval warfare):



...and lastly, re the morality of the strike:

100% this:

How can you be doubtful there was an imminent threat if you feel it's a near certainty he was actively collaborating with an enemy force?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Because the collaboration was (and would have continued to be) ongoing and multifaceted rather than a one-off related to a specific attack that was about to take place in such a short timeframe that going to Congress for authorization first isn't possible. Article II permits preemptive strikes without prior Congressional approval, but not preventive ones. It's a bit like the difference between killing someone just as they're drawing their weapon to kill you and killing someone who's plotting to kill you at some point in the future. The former is legal self-defense, but the latter is murder (legally at least).

Seems to me that "assisting an enemy force in the field during active hostilities" is more of a "drawing their weapon to kill you" kinda thing and not a "plotting" deal.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

We've seen no hint of moderation coming out of Iran since they signed that sham of an accord even though President Obama and his talking heads told us they would. This guy Soleimani was a class A shithead with the blood of Americans and Iraqis on his hands. He was in Iraq stirring up crap. From what I can tell, the Sunnis and the Kurds have absolutely no problem with what was done, hence their abstention from vote on a resolution to expel US troops. The world has been done a favor by removing him. This isn't going to start a war. Nobody wants a war with Iran and Iran definitely does not want a war with us. This is why they pretty much all but notified Iraqis and US troops of an impending strike so that they could make a meaningless retaliation to save face and can now back away from the table.

Boggles my mind that Democrats cry foul on this one. When they whack an actual head of state in Libya, it's a win. When the orange man orange cheetoh orange orange orange does it, it's the worst thing on earth and suddenly they care about the letter of the law in the Constitution again.

_________________
The Dude abides.

This is not really a common legal opinion, even under the War Powers Act. It's even less applicable here because Soleimani has been actively coordinating and supporting combat operations against U.S. forces for decades, and so has the Iranian government at large. Almost 20% of those killed in Iraq were killed by Iranian-supplied IEDs when Iran was ostensibly not a party to the conflict. Congress has continued to fund U.S. operations under these circumstances, including specific, named operations to deter Iran that predate Trump's presidency. For Congress (or anyone else) to try now to make a War Powers complaint is disingenuous on the part of everyone else, and at best an admission of dereliction of duty by Congress, collectively. Concerns about an Imperial Presidency should be focused on the misbehavior, dereliction, and cowardice of Congress in general - and to a degree, the press as well, because they apparently discovered this concern in the last two weeks.

As for other posters and their concerns about war with Iran...

**** LOL

Yes, war with Iran would be costly for us. It would be DEVASTATING for Iran. No matter what else happened, Iran would find it's leaders in about 5,000 pieces.

And as for Soleimani, he was literally one of the worst people on Earth. Killing him is called deterrence. If Iran wants to take an equivalent shot at our leaders, they can **** go for it. I dare them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."