ADVERTISEMENT

Petraeus on the Soleimani kill

  • Thread starter anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
  • Start date
We subsidized ISIS in a roundabout way. I wish Trump would follow his instincts and bring our guys home, and let the locals deal with their mess. It's not our problem and it doesn't benefit America. These are unwinnable wars.
We have too few troops in Iraq to exert any kind of cultural or economic or political influence. The small number of troops makes them very vulnerable to hostile action.
 
FB-IMG-1578180123438.jpg

giphy.gif
 
That's not what people that know more than you and I are saying.

Thats bull. You find your 5 experts and I'll find mine. It's obviously in the interest of a certain narrative to hype this guy. Have you paid attention to what happens after we take out the heads of certain terror orgs in Afghanistan? Do their orgs die off the map? The idea that he's irreplaceable is silly. The next guy maybe more or less effective, but it doesn't eliminate the threat.
 
Thats bull. You find your 5 experts and I'll find mine. It's obviously in the interest of a certain narrative to hype this guy. Have you paid attention to what happens after we take out the heads of certain terror orgs in Afghanistan? Do their orgs die off the map? The idea that he's irreplaceable is silly. The next guy maybe more or less effective, but it doesn't eliminate the threat.

This is quite a naive understanding of who this guy was or what he did. You are choosing not to believe the experts that served under both parties and their take on his importance.

This isn't some head of a simple organization. He literally helped finance multiple terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. All while being a pain in the world's side in terms of energy distribution.
 
This is quite a naive understanding of who this guy was or what he did. You are choosing not to believe the experts that served under both parties and their take on his importance.

This isn't some head of a simple organization. He literally helped finance multiple terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. All while being a pain in the world's side in terms of energy distribution.

I'm not naive. The naivety is believing that he is the only individual within the IRGC who is capable of this.
 
Wait, what? I've kind of tuned out this part of the conversation, but are we really considering targeting sites solely for their cultural value? Like, isn't that what the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This has to be a joke and/or misunderstanding. I hope.

That's what ISIS did as well. Prez has now doubled down on this.
 
Wait, what? I've kind of tuned out this part of the conversation, but are we really considering targeting sites solely for their cultural value? Like, isn't that what the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This has to be a joke and/or misunderstanding. I hope.
It’s Trump being a moron
 
It’s Trump being a moron

This is all happening when he's on the ****ing golf course. What's happening is insane right now. There is no direction with anything taking place. It's shoot from the hip bluster. There is no strategy.
 
Wait, what? I've kind of tuned out this part of the conversation, but are we really considering targeting sites solely for their cultural value? Like, isn't that what the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This has to be a joke and/or misunderstanding. I hope.
So when he's out of office we can just turn him over to the Hague?
 
I'm not naive. The naivety is believing that he is the only individual within the IRGC who is capable of this.

I highly doubt the replacement will be so cavalier about traveling outside of Iran in the future.... particularly now if US policy is to equate Quds leadership as equivalent to a leader of any other designated terrorist group.
 
The strategy is being unpredictable. That's why he is well-loved and thought of highly by his fans.
Trump's strategy is not unpredictable, it is to be maximally transgressive. Unlike most people who always pick the moderate alternative, Trump reflexively picks the most extreme alternative. He intentionally polarizes and, by getting his supporters to endorse his extremism, he stoogifies them. If Trump blows up cultural sites in retaliation we can look forward to the right lauding him for that.

All this is kind of orthogonal to the strategy of political assassination. The discussion between Goat and Ranger in which Ranger says "we killed a terrorist" and Goat replies "we killed a terrorist and assassinated an official of a foreign government" brings us to the heart of things. We have long had a strategy of killing terrorists...nothing new. We have long had a strategy of not engaging in political assassinations. The discussion here should be about political assassinations.
 
Wait, what? I've kind of tuned out this part of the conversation, but are we really considering targeting sites solely for their cultural value? Like, isn't that what the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

This has to be a joke and/or misunderstanding. I hope.

I guess we have to know what his definition of a cultural site would be. Technically, this is a cultural site and so is this. I have no problem with blowing up the former but would have an issue with hitting the latter.

So I guess it just depends on what the definition of "is" is.
 
Trump's strategy is not unpredictable, it is to be maximally transgressive. Unlike most people who always pick the moderate alternative, Trump reflexively picks the most extreme alternative. He intentionally polarizes and, by getting his supporters to endorse his extremism, he stoogifies them. If Trump blows up cultural sites in retaliation we can look forward to the right lauding him for that.

All this is kind of orthogonal to the strategy of political assassination. The discussion between Goat and Ranger in which Ranger says "we killed a terrorist" and Goat replies "we killed a terrorist and assassinated an official of a foreign government" brings us to the heart of things. We have long had a strategy of killing terrorists...nothing new. We have long had a strategy of not engaging in political assassinations. The discussion here should be about political assassinations.
Being a terrorist on the government payroll does not cancel you from being a terrorist. Hopefully that message is now Lima Charlie.
 
If Trump blows up cultural sites in retaliation we can look forward to the right lauding him for that.

I agree with everything you wrote. On this particular note, i would merely suggest that Trump does not come up with "cultural sites" on his own. This is something suggested to him by counsel. He is receiving reprehensible and illegal counsel from those who should do better.

Further, not only would the right laud him for attacking cultural sides, they would also laud him for interning Iranian Americans. This is the kind of sick state would find ourselves in. Certain posters would also find themselves supporting these acts as the needle of normalization continues to shift. The ends justify the means for this sick administration.
 
I guess we have to know what his definition of a cultural site would be. Technically, this is a cultural site and so is this. I have no problem with blowing up the former but would have an issue with hitting the latter.

So I guess it just depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Neither one would be a valid military target.
 
I guess we have to know what his definition of a cultural site would be. Technically, this is a cultural site and so is this. I have no problem with blowing up the former but would have an issue with hitting the latter.

So I guess it just depends on what the definition of "is" is.
You should have a problem with destroying the former.
 
Being a terrorist on the government payroll does not cancel you from being a terrorist. Hopefully that message is now Lima Charlie.
First, we don't know what message Trump was actually trying to send or even who was the primary intended target of the message. (My guess is that primary target of Trump's message is not government officials here or abroad but folks like you). Second, whatever message we are trying to send what matters is the message received. Here is the message being received abroad.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/financial-n-option-will-settle-trumps-oil-war/
Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani had flown into Baghdad on a normal carrier flight, carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by the Trump administration.

So Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump. And Soleimani was a messenger. Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport.

Now, the fact is that the United States government – on foreign soil, as a guest nation – has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government itself.​

Over and over our feckless politicians decide to use foreign military action not to pursue long term national interests but to manipulate domestic feelings to create temporary political advantage. This costs us dearly in the long term and imposes even greater costs on people abroad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toastedbread
First, we don't know what message Trump was actually trying to send or even who was the primary intended target of the message. (My guess is that primary target of Trump's message is not government officials here or abroad but folks like you). Second, whatever message we are trying to send what matters is the message received. Here is the message being received abroad.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/financial-n-option-will-settle-trumps-oil-war/
Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani had flown into Baghdad on a normal carrier flight, carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by the Trump administration.

So Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump. And Soleimani was a messenger. Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport.

Now, the fact is that the United States government – on foreign soil, as a guest nation – has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government itself.​

Over and over our feckless politicians decide to use foreign military action not to pursue long term national interests but to manipulate domestic feelings to create temporary political advantage. This costs us dearly in the long term and imposes even greater costs on people abroad.


I tried reading some of that link..... but it reads as if written by a total tin foil wearing cuckoo. So go look the character up.... and find a guy who's made a career for decades writing anti-US propaganda in Asia and Russia..... has a real soft spot for the Iranian regime in particular.
 
Last edited:
I tried reading some of that link..... but it reads as if written by a total tin foil wearing cuckoo.
NY Times
the general may have also been working as a go-between in quiet efforts to reduce the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Hostility and competition for influence had grown for years between the two regional rivals, but in recent months, Iran and Saudi Arabia had taken steps toward indirect talks to diffuse the situation.

In an address to the Iraqi Parliament on Sunday, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq said that he was supposed to meet with General Suleimani on the morning he was killed.

“It was expected that he was carrying a message for me from the Iranian side responding to the Saudi message that we had sent to the Iranian side to reach agreements and breakthroughs important for the situation in Iraq and the region,” Mr. Mahdi said.​
 
Over and over our feckless politicians decide to use foreign military action not to pursue long term national interests but to manipulate domestic feelings

I think its even more nefarious that that. We are talking about an elected official who enjoys human suffering.
 
You should have a problem with destroying the former.

Disagree.

I view that one particular building as a legitimate target. Same as I would view a propaganda arm as a legitimate target.

I would not seek to destroy it in broad daylight where it is likely to be filled with people, but I would not bat an eye if it was destroyed. I view the ancient sites differently.
 
NY Times
the general may have also been working as a go-between in quiet efforts to reduce the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Hostility and competition for influence had grown for years between the two regional rivals, but in recent months, Iran and Saudi Arabia had taken steps toward indirect talks to diffuse the situation.

In an address to the Iraqi Parliament on Sunday, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq said that he was supposed to meet with General Suleimani on the morning he was killed.

“It was expected that he was carrying a message for me from the Iranian side responding to the Saudi message that we had sent to the Iranian side to reach agreements and breakthroughs important for the situation in Iraq and the region,” Mr. Mahdi said.​


I'm well aware of Mahdi's position on this..... are you aware of Mahdi's background? And why he has been forced out of his office?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Disagree.

I view that one particular building as a legitimate target. Same as I would view a propaganda arm as a legitimate target.

I would not seek to destroy it in broad daylight where it is likely to be filled with people, but I would not bat an eye if it was destroyed. I view the ancient sites differently.



We shouldn't be striking any targets in Iran, unless there is a major escalation from them.......I personally believe very little will change, irrespective of all the chicken littles squawking....

Iran wil try to kill any US personnel in the region..... same as they've been doing for 40 years.... going back to when the IRGC killed 200+ marines in Beirut... continuing on to the thousands they maimed in Iraq over the last 15 years.
 
I'm well aware of Mahdi's position on this..... are you aware of Mahdi's background? And why he has been forced out of his office?
Do explain about Mahdi.

I provided the links above to help us figure out what messages people in the ME are receiving from the assassination.

Reading this from the Times as background provides a pretty clear motive that the folks advocating the assassination mean to derail negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran intended to reduce tensions in Iraq and the ME. The message received isn't about deterring terrorism it is about scuttling negotiations.
 
So if Soleimani was involved in diplomacy between Iran and the Saudis through Iraqi intermediaries, how was our State Department not aware of it? Surely that would have factored into the decision to strike if they were. If they weren't, are they just that incompetent, or is this whole narrative just a smokescreen?
 
An excellent article on all the killings taking place.
Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed in a drone strike early Friday, is getting the vast majority of the media attention. But several others were also killed in the attack, including militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. For years, Muhandis has been one of the most important military figures in Iraq, as the deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces.
...
Muhandis is responsible for extensive violence against American interests. In the power vacuum that developed after the death of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2006, Muhandis founded Kataib Hezbollah, an anti-U.S. insurgency movement responsible for numerous American casualties. The U.S. considered Muhandis and his insurgency to be "terrorist" groups.

"His network was the most professional killer of Americans in Iraq," says Michael Knights, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Knights tells NPR that the vast majority of IEDs that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq were provided by Muhandis' network. According to Knights, the U.S. considered killing Muhandis multiple times, including in June 2011, when 15 American soldiers were killed in Iraq -- the vast majority by Kataib Hezbollah.

The killing of Muhandis came after a week of violence, much of which was orchestrated by Kataib Hezbollah. On Dec. 27, the group attacked the K1 military base near the Iraqi city of Kurkuk, killing an American contractor and wounding several American and Iraqi personnel. On Tuesday, the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad was stormed, as a crowd of protesters set fires and militia members tried to enter the embassy. On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper warned Iran and its "proxy militias" that the U.S. would retaliate.
...
Had only Muhandis been killed, the first Iraqi reaction would be to ask Soleimani who could replace him, Knights says. If only Soleimani had been killed, Muhandis would still be there to lead military operations. "Getting one or the other would have left a lot of leadership structure in place. This gives the entire system a really heavy jolt."

"Their combined death is certainly a blow to the Iranian project in Iraq, but how much remains to be seen," says Thomas Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It's hard for a Western observer to know how important Muhandis was in terms of decision-making and internal dynamics within the PMF, Joscelyn tells NPR. Was he a uniquely important figure? Or just another leader whose job can be effectively performed by his successor?

Cordesman agrees that exactly how great an impact Muhandis' death will have is still unknown. "We tend to demonize these people as if they were absolutely critical, stable figures, but you had a pretty competent Iranian deputy take over the al-Quds force in less than a day," says Cordesman, referring to Esmail Ghaani. "The whole idea that you paralyze a movement by getting rid of the leader, if that's true we don't have any recent examples."​
 
Do explain about Mahdi.

I provided the links above to help us figure out what messages people in the ME are receiving from the assassination.

Reading this from the Times as background provides a pretty clear motive that the folks advocating the assassination mean to derail negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran intended to reduce tensions in Iraq and the ME. The message received isn't about deterring terrorism it is about scuttling negotiations.


Mahdi spent most of his adult life in Iran.....and has been doing the bidding of Tehran ever since joining up with the Islamists after the revolution. The tentacles of Iran are deeply immersed in the current Iraqi govt.... to the point it's been operating as basically a puppet state for Tehran. The Iraqi populace had enough of Iranian influence (and widespread corruption, among other things)...... including Iraqi nationalists like Sadr, who are Shia, but also anti-Iranian... these protests had pushed Mahdi out of office. He's technically just a place-holder right now...... again, this stuff isn't happening in a vacuum.

This was less than a month ago..... gives further background.

U.S. SANCTIONS ARE DRIVING IRAN TO TIGHTEN ITS GRIP ON IRAQ
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/10/sanctions-iran-iraq-protests/
 
Mahdi spent most of his adult life in Iran.....and has been doing the bidding of Tehran ever since joining up with the Islamists after the revolution. The tentacles of Iran are deeply immersed in the current Iraqi govt.... to the point it's been operating as basically a puppet state for Tehran. The Iraqi populace had enough of Iranian influence (and widespread corruption, among other things)...... including Iraqi nationalists like Sadr, who are Shia, but also anti-Iranian... these protests had pushed Mahdi out of office. He's technically just a place-holder right now...... again, this stuff isn't happening in a vacuum.

This was less than a month ago..... gives further background.

U.S. SANCTIONS ARE DRIVING IRAN TO TIGHTEN ITS GRIP ON IRAQ
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/10/sanctions-iran-iraq-protests/
Thanks for those. I went and read about Mahdi after you posted.
Here is a very thoughtful article on the bigger picture.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67927/trumps-fatal-mistake-killing-suleimani-vs-countering-isis/
In ordering the killing of Qassem Suleimani, President Trump has made the abandoning of Kurdish partners seem relatively well-considered by comparison. There are many ways this will likely gut the counter-ISIS campaign. First, the Iraqi government reacted in outrage, both over the killing and what appears to be a failure to seek its consent prior to the operation. This alone may well lead to future restrictions on armed drone operations or U.S. strikes inside the country against ISIS. Second, on Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted for the government to oust U.S. troops. That includes troops who were meant to conduct counter-ISIS air operations in Syria, as the backup plan following the U.S. withdrawal from that country. Third, the Iranian government very predictably promised retaliation, leading the U.S. military and its coalition partners to suspend counter-ISIS operations to free up resources to protect their personnel and facilities. Fourth, in killing the leader of Kataib Hezbollah alongside Suleimani, the United States made it far less likely that Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, of which Kataib Hezbollah is a part, would support coalition counter-ISIS efforts going forward. Finally, fissures with our closest allies even appear to be materializing in the wake of the strike. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said European allies were not being “helpful enough” after the strike, and even the British government, while straining not to criticize the United States, warned that escalating conflict would benefit nobody but ISIS. Iran announced it would resume its nuclear program without any of the restrictions from the 2015 nuclear deal, which is sure to drive further rifts between the United States and its European allies, who largely continue to support the deal.

The bottom line is that there won’t be much counterterrorism going on in Iraq and Syria any time soon.

In November, President Trump tweeted a doctored photo of his face superimposed on fictitious boxer Rocky Balboa’s body. It was fitting in that Trump dreams of the big knockout. Killing Baghdadi to halt ISIS. Killing Suleimani to disrupt Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Quds Force plotting. But counterterrorism simply doesn’t work that way. President Trump and the true believers in his inner circle have no sense of the strategy it will take to defeat ISIS (or Iran-linked terrorist groups, for that matter). Counterterrorism requires careful, methodical work, undertaken with our closest allies, that builds up local partners, patiently targets key vulnerabilities in the terrorist network over time, and ultimately addresses the long-term drivers of violent extremism. To be sure, our counter-ISIS strategy has a big place for lethal strikes and special operations raids, but even these are only possible when we have set the conditions for such operations to take place and when they’re conducted so as to mitigate any negative political and diplomatic fallout. A concerted effort to build and maintain the geopolitical conditions for counterterrorism must underpin everything.

Trump’s counterterrorism legacy in Iraq and Syria may be a series of dead bodies but nothing that addresses the core of the problem and no partners willing to help us root it out.​
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT