Iraq Unravels

[Cloud Cover]

I believe the good sir has qualified that assertion with this:

"Another way to say it is that a state is not illegitimate merely by virtue of not sharing your values, your end-states, or is in fact an adversary.  Equally, an adversary or enemy does not automatically become a terrorist in order to justify extra-judicial responses."

And he's right, although I've yet to ever see a judicial order for a drone strike. The deceased was a terrorist before and during his time in Iran so there wasn't really anything automatic about that, eve if he was wearing several other hats at the same time.  The drone strikes themselves is a policy order based on precedent long used by the US administration, not just President Trump. The revolting part is potential abuse of the policy and authority for a political purpose that may have been meant to serve as a useful distraction from a whole other mess of a domestic nature.

Killing an adversary by drone strike is both justified and lawful when .... (I don't know the answer but I believe quantifiable evidence of imminent threat to [insert here] is established operationally and not just mere suspicion.)

 

[FJAG]

...
Killing an adversary by drone strike is both justified and lawful when .... (I don't know the answer but I believe quantifiable evidence of imminent threat to [insert here] is established operationally and not just mere suspicion.)

The answer to your question is: Killing an adversary (who is an official of a legitimate nation state) (by the US military) is both justified and lawful when Congress has declared war (or otherwise authorized military action) against that nation state.

Congress has not authorized such actions.

:cheers:

 

[Infanteer]

Giving the dead terrorist a rank when he was alive does not ( or should not) be a justification and shield for him to be in country for every purpose for which he was there.

Calling him a terrorist is not helpful.  Although definitions of terrorism vary, the best include five essential components.  Terrorism:

1. Is an act of violence
2. Is politically motivated
3. Is Intended to intimidate or coerce the public
4. Targets civilians
5. Is conducted by a non-state actor

The last one is important, as it helps bound the concept to be useful.  If terrorism is not confined by its definition to non-state actors, it becomes conflated with state-sanctioned violence.  At this point, the term starts becoming meaningless, because state actors and entities are labelled as terrorists and the next thing you know the bombing of Germany during the second world war is labelled an act of terrorism.  All violence is terrorism (to someone).  If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.

If we apply the definition above, then Soleimini is not a terrorist.  While calling him such may make us feel better, he was the uniformed member of a state's armed forces.  If we stray from this, then politicized histrionics takes the place of rational analysis.

 

[Cloud Cover]

FJAG: that makes a whole lot of killings in 5he past 12 years unlawful but justified.

 

[tomahawk6]

Calling him a terrorist is not helpful.  Although definitions of terrorism vary, the best include five essential components.  Terrorism:

1. Is an act of violence
2. Is politically motivated
3. Is Intended to intimidate or coerce the public
4. Targets civilians
5. Is conducted by a non-state actor

The last one is important, as it helps bound the concept to be useful.  If terrorism is not confined by its definition to non-state actors, it becomes conflated with state-sanctioned violence.  At this point, the term starts becoming meaningless, because state actors and entities are labelled as terrorists and the next thing you know the bombing of Germany during the second world war is labelled an act of terrorism.  All violence is terrorism (to someone).  If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.

If we apply the definition above, then Soleimini is not a terrorist.  While calling him such may make us feel better, he was the uniformed member of a state's armed forces.  If we stray from this, then politicized histrionics takes the place of rational analysis.

He was a master of asymmetrical warfare and he was part of an organization that was named as a terrorist organization.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7847905/Qassem-Soleimani-terrorist-general-blood-THOUSANDS-hands.html

 

[Infanteer]

I can call a dog a duck, but just because I say it is, don't make it so.  Naming the Quds Force a terrorist organization is about as useful as naming the United States Marine Corps a terrorist organization.

Now, the Quds Force are definitely drivers of state-sponsored terrorism, but that is a different concept.

 

[FJAG]

FJAG: that makes a whole lot of killings in 5he past 12 years unlawful but justified.

If you mean by the US then that's not a correct statement.

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle about what is lawful or unlawful killing in these situations. I'm looking at this from a very narrow focus i.e.: Is the Soleimani targeting within the authority of Trump?

The US has been involved for many years in actions against forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq (as well as Syria). In all cases there have been authorizations for the conflicts (whether through UN self defence justification, NATO consensus etc) in each case with broad authority granted to the President by Congress to take appropriate military action. I therefore consider the US's actions in those countries "lawful" in a general sense.

In the case of Soleimani, we are dealing with a strike on a government agent of the country of Iran for which there has been no Congressional authorization for the use of military force. IMHO that's the President usurping a power which under the Constitution belongs to Congress.

I'm not arguing one way or the other as to whether it was "justified" or not (I don't have enough facts to determine if this was a true imminent threat that could only be dealt with in this way) nor am I arguing as to whether it was "legal" or not. (I expect that there will be battalions of left and right wing lawyers who will debate this on every news channel for years to come).

I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war and in order to do that a President needs a Congressional authorization under the terms of the US Constitution. That's quite different from what else has been going on since 9/11. I'm not saying anything more than that.

:cheers:

 

[Weinie]

The debate over legalities, semantics, international norms, niceties, LOAC, et al, some of which I have partook of on this forum, has been both fractious and educational, but at the end of the day, I am glad this POS is no longer amongst the living.

 

[Infanteer]

The debate over legalities, semantics, international norms, niceties, LOAC, et al, some of which I have partook of on this forum, has been both fractious and educational, but at the end of the day, I am glad this POS is no longer amongst the living.

That is something I think almost all of us agree on.  :goodpost:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>4. Targets civilians
>5. Is conducted by a non-state actor

(5) is unnecessary, but assume it; thus, a state (military) actor targeting civilians (or, in general, disregarding necessity, distinction, and proportionality) is not a terrorist but merely a lawful combatant committing unlawful acts of war.

>I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war and in order to do that a President needs a Congressional authorization under the terms of the US Constitution.

Pretty much every state action involving violence against another state is an act of war.  People should clarify whether they mean what is vacuously true, or whether they mean "an act of war initiating hostilities - providing casus belli - where none previously existed"; the latter situation is not the one at hand.  It is untrue that the president requires Congressional authorization to commit an act of war; the president has authority to respond not only to attacks but also to imminent attacks.  I haven't come across anyone arguing seriously that the president has no  authority to respond to attacks in general, and Congress acknowledged in the 2001 AUMF "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:".  Deter and prevent cover a lot of ground.  If someone wants to try and argue that there is a gap in the president's authority to respond between attacks by conventional warfare and terrorism (the gap being state forces openly flouting the principles of LOAC while hiding behind "state actor" status), good luck.

To summarize: to commit an act of war in response to an act of war (lawful or not, by people with combatant status or not) without waiting for Congressional authorization is an authority the US president does have.

And there's nothing tying responses tightly to provocations.

 

[Baz]

That is something I think almost all of us agree on.  :goodpost:

Agreed.

Hypothetical question: what would have been the fallout of the USSR deliberately and openly targetting and killing the CIA Pakistan chief of station visiting Afghanistan in the mid 80s, during the US effort to support Iskamic efforts against the USSR?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Agreed.

Hypothetical question: what would have been the fallout of the USSR deliberately and openly targetting and killing the CIA Pakistan chief of station visiting Afghanistan in the mid 80s, during the US effort to support Iskamic efforts against the USSR?

It is a useful thought experiment. Given that both the US and USSR were nuclear powers, I do not believe it would have led to war. It would likely have been diplomatically protested and led to increased western sanctions against the USSR.

Interestingly, I also think it may have led to the US quietly backing away from supporting Afghan Mujhadeen forces and finding another avenue to discomfort the Soviets.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war.

... and we have just walked through a particular kind of 'looking glass' so, if we haven't already done so, the USA and everyone who Iran (and their allies) views as an American ally had better up our security game to be ready for whatever comes next.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Iran was more or less winning the asymmetrical fight, they were using proxies, mostly with poor Afghans and others to fight and die for a pittance, their Iranian leaders more or less safe. By this action the US has said, that your no longer safe outside your borders, making Command and Control of their proxies far more difficult and dangerous. Coupled with mounting sanctions, raising domestic issues, Iran may find it difficult to both lead and pay for these proxies, meaning they won't operate with a common goal. As long as Trump is willing to offer a political solution to the Iranian leadership, coupled with an aggressive response posture and continued sanctions, we may very well see meaningful change within the power structures of Iran. What I have found interesting is how quickly the Clerics and the government blamed the IRGC for both the shooting the airliner down and the coverup of the blunder. They know the people want blood and are forcing the IRGC to put up it's own sacrificial goats in order to save the Government/clerics from the wrath. I suspect there are many palace intrigues going on and lot of sleepless nights for the leadership. If Trump gets re-elected, they are going to be very worried. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

What's the high risk, exactly?

 

[Remius]

What's the high risk, exactly?

Collateral damage vs contained?  :dunno:

 

[Baz]

What's the high risk, exactly?

That it blows up in our face.  It goes from terrorism, which is a pin prick, to state on state conflict involving Russia, which is an axe in comparison.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That it blows up in our face.  It goes from terrorism, which is a pin prick, to state on state conflict involving Russia, which is an axe in comparison.

Not so sure Russia would choose to get into a direct conflict with the US on behalf of Iran, China might, but likley only if the flow of oil to her is threatened and quiet sideline diplomacy can ease that concern. There is no chance of an invasion of Iran, so the country itself is not threatened and likely the US would slowly escalate the attacks and currently Iran could not endure to many without massive problems internally. The non-IRGC military might decide not to get involved in order to protect it's assets from destruction and might be secretly happy to have the IRGC taken apart by US airstrikes. If the US focuses retaliation purely on the IRGC, then the other power factions in Iran might see it as something the IRGC brought upon itself and try to wrestle power from them to safeguard the country. Any attacks should also be supported with secret diplomacy moves to non-IRGC power brokers to help an internal move to limit the Clerics and IRGC.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>state on state conflict involving Russia

Truly?

Conflict costs money.  Even at peace, Iran needs to sell oil more than the purchasers need to buy that oil; Iran's need is amplified if conflict escalates.  Most of the purchasers nevertheless would be disgruntled if Iran elected to slit its own throat, close the gulf, and grind to a halt.

Suppose Iran is irrevocably stupid and closes the gulf while entering into a conventional war.  Lacking hard cash flows and a military-industrial complex of its own, Iran will rapidly deplete its major equipment and ammunition and its ability to buy more.  Any country coming to Iran's aid - and prolonging the oil crunch - will be looked upon very disfavourably by the purchasers of gulf oil.  I doubt any nation capable of making a difference will supply its own hard cash or stockpiles of equipment and ammunition to stretch out an unpopular war.

Suppose Iran is a bit smarter, and declares the gulf "open" provided no-one attacks its terminal facilities, while entering into a conventional war.  What is it supposed to do that will attract anyone's interest, other than invade a neighbour and grind down its military forces to no useful purpose?

 

[PuckChaser]

Cut out a lot of the chaff dealing with the US Presidency, and put it where it belongs in the Politics subforum.

- Milnet.ca Staff