Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Technically correct, the man was however the most influential 2 star general in the revolutionary guard; the equivalent of the SS or comissariat, politically second only to the ayatolla. I also get the impression the Quds are also the only part of the Iranian millitary with recent combat experience, much of it supporting groups that are currently making american forces lives difficult.

Combined with personally taunting the god emperor (Gee, could it be I'm joking?) the man must have known he had a target on his forhead, making it foolish he was personally running about near a bagdad airport.

He wasnt some well intentioned diplomat, he was the coordinator of shia insurgents and millitias in the middle east, many of which are outright terrorists.

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

For reference: i do not disagree with anything said by adam - or condone the hit - merely point to the process that evolves the potential of a legitimate target before it is presented as an option to the CINC.

More on this:

Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration’s campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

[...]

At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

NB Pompeo (promoted from Trump's CIA director to Secretary of State) is an apocalyptic evangelical Christian who believe a final conflict in the Middle East will bring about the Rapture.

Theoretically the Iranians would be licensed to assassinate him.

"we are not idiots" says the nation that keeps poking the bear.

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

[Greyblades]

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

The coalition soldiers dont have the entirety of the nations armed forces abroad relying upon their continued leadership, he had subordinates he could use as intermediary, the iranians have diplomats; needlessly exposing himself to the enemy's air superiority was foolish simply as evidenced by the red smear he became. It is doubly so for the void in command his death left and that iran now is attempting to fill.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

Fairly sure sulemani didnt have diplomatic status/immunity, the western media would be raving it about if he did.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly. Is it the stable borders that makes this millitary leader special or the fact they got the bullet instead of the Tomohawk missile?

As much as I doubt that it has been so long since the US has killed a millitary leader (the CIA would probably dispute such) is it so because the US has some chivalric code or is it because this guy is the first one foolish enough to personally poke his head into american controlled airspace?

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

Funny you should say that when currently it is the iranians who are crying about being hit back.