Iraq Unravels
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
tomahawk6 said:
Pretty sure everyone here is well aware of that.
Some, but clearly not all, are aware that the declaration of ‘terrorist’ applies a strong label, with weak and diluted meaning, and that it in no way defines the nature of the game.
Iran is a state; a significant one, with military control over territory and the ability to deny use/access of some airspace, waters, and land beyond its own jurisdictions. Was a ‘terrorist leader’ killed? Depending whose definitions you care about, sure, one was. But an asymmetrical conflict with a very capable and dangerous state actor was also escalated. The juice may not prove to have been worth the squeeze. Without a doubt there will be more dead Americans as a direct result.
- Reaction score
- 1,509
- Points
- 1,260
Brihard said:
On the homefront, the New York Post reports the Mayor and NYPD are taking "immediate steps to protect key locations" in the city against retaliation.
Sounds like a lot of OT for the emergency services.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
kkwd said:
So the Iranian equivalent to the CIA? Because if you change the organizations supported listed, you could describe the CIA doing the same to further the interests of the US. No different then the KGB or Chinese equivalent.
Not on the side of Iran here, but we shouldn't pretend the West are the good guys here; more like that it's our side.
This wasn't even subtle; it was a pretty open display of brutal power. Even Russia puts up a scenario that gives them some (fairly thin) plausible deniability; no one believes it, but doesn't rise to the cartoonish level of heavy handedness that this does.
Also, I do think Trump is incompetent at a lot of things; he's declared bankruptcy 4 times, and was basically given the business. His net worth is primarily based on real estate holdings and their escalation over decades, but any of his business ventures that he started failed, and his charity was shut down after being abused for personal gain. He's good at selling himself and having endless confidence, but doesn't seem to be backed up by anything he's actually accomplished. Kind of amazed that with the number of sexual assault complaints going against him that he's never actually been charged; benefits of being rich I guess.
I do wonder if he's actually going senile; if you've ever watched his press conferences unedited he tends to ramble in a pretty unhinged manner. Have had a number of relatives with Alzheimer recently, and they occasionally had the same confusion when they started going downhill.
So no, I don't like or respect him, but even aside from that, his handling of the M. East has been deranged. Even his biggest sycophants called him out on his sudden Syria withdrawal, and with this act he has effectively unilaterally declared war by assassinating a senior member of their government. Just because they label him a terrorist does not mean he is somehow not part of the Iranian state, but I honestly don't think he cares about any long term consequences and is so used to pushing people around that he can't fathom Iran hitting back.
- Reaction score
- 2,064
- Points
- 1,160
PPCLI Guy said:
Wait. What? Us?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,734
- Points
- 1,040
>Without a doubt there will be more dead Americans as a direct result.
How do you propose to identify/compare future Americans dead as a direct result, future Americans dead because the alternative is not actually a universe of no Americans being targeted, and future not-dead Americans as a direct result?
I enjoy all the hand-wringing rhetorical "I-have-concerns" emanating from the commentariat, particularly from the "expert" people who proposed/executed/supported/apologized for one or more of the following: removal of Saddam Hussein with certain embrace of democracy to follow; "war on terror", drone assassinations, premature draw-down in Iraq, ruination of Libya, fuck-up in Syria, lame responses to Russian aggression in Europe, and all the other foreign policy triumphs of the past few administrations. When those people levy their criticisms, remember that the alternative to the current administration is not angels and saints, it's those people back in charge promoting and achieving all their great successes.
So far, the toll of dead middle easterners during the Trump administration seems to be down from what it was during the past two administrations.
How do you propose to identify/compare future Americans dead as a direct result, future Americans dead because the alternative is not actually a universe of no Americans being targeted, and future not-dead Americans as a direct result?
I enjoy all the hand-wringing rhetorical "I-have-concerns" emanating from the commentariat, particularly from the "expert" people who proposed/executed/supported/apologized for one or more of the following: removal of Saddam Hussein with certain embrace of democracy to follow; "war on terror", drone assassinations, premature draw-down in Iraq, ruination of Libya, fuck-up in Syria, lame responses to Russian aggression in Europe, and all the other foreign policy triumphs of the past few administrations. When those people levy their criticisms, remember that the alternative to the current administration is not angels and saints, it's those people back in charge promoting and achieving all their great successes.
So far, the toll of dead middle easterners during the Trump administration seems to be down from what it was during the past two administrations.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,734
- Points
- 1,040
>unilaterally declared war by assassinating a senior member of their government
Only Congress has the power to declare war. If you mean it was an act of war, of course it was. So are all the other violent provocations of the past couple of decades executed by all the parties involved. Good luck identifying the "first" one.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. If you mean it was an act of war, of course it was. So are all the other violent provocations of the past couple of decades executed by all the parties involved. Good luck identifying the "first" one.
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
PuckChaser said:
I have to agree with you. There is a time for diplomacy and a time to start swinging. This has no doubt shocked Iran and will significantly change their calculus going forward. There are also plenty of people in Iran who don't like the Regime, the Ayatollah, or the IRGC. The US has just shown the Iranian Regime that they can pretty much kill any of their leadership, including the Ayatollah himself, with absolute impunity and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.
Weinie said:
When you start throwing punches, you’d better have a plan to end the fight. Nobody’s standing off to the side with a stopwatch and a little bell, and there’s no ref in the ring.
Seriously, a lot of the rhetoric around this is so simplistic as to be inane.
Force, destruction, killing- these are all tools. Tools are used to accomplish a larger task. That big picture mustn’t be lost in the desire to swing (or drop) the hammer. A tactical strike that is not rationally connected to strategic objectives is merely violence. A tactical strike that compromises or undermines strategic objectives is folly.
Buried by the death of Soleimani is the death of al-Muhandis. Stability and hegemony are American strategic objectives in Iraq. The assassination of al-Muhandis threatens that.
- Reaction score
- 6,468
- Points
- 1,360
Brihard said:
And your crystal ball tells you this how? Maybe he was found to be a destabilizing force and thus was stabilized.
Or maybe not.....
- Reaction score
- 9,925
- Points
- 1,360
Brihard said:
You don't think whacking your adversary's top dog and his local lieutenant doesn't send a message? I think it sends a great message and was exactly what was needed after this incident which it seems everyone has already forgotten about:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-iran-special-rep/special-reporttime-to-take-out-our-swords-inside-irans-plot-to-attack-saudi-arabia-idUSKBN1XZ16H
The US is also deploying a brigade right now to the Middle East. The hawks are probably hoping Iran takes a swing back as that would invite the opportunity for a massive retaliatory response reminiscent of shock and awe circa 2003.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Bruce Monkhouse said:
oh yeah, real stabilized, but in the wrong direction for the US, take a look at a handful of news articles beginning to surface. Who would've guessed Iraq wouldn't react positively to this? :
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-primeminister/rival-shiite-leaders-in-iraq-call-for-us-troop-expulsion-in-rare-show-of-unity-idUSKBN1Z20JO
https://theweek.com/speedreads/887302/iraq-deputy-parliament-speaker-vows-decisive-decisions-end-presence-country
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,039
- Points
- 1,160
It's interesting that the US is sending the 82nd Airborne.
They were the first on the ground during Operation Desert Sheild. I don't remember if it was General Schwarzkopf or General Powell but one of them was talking about the 82nd and Desert Shield and how sending the 82nd was symbolic. If Hussain wanted to he could have rolled right over them.
At the time the heaviest armor the 82nd had was the M551 Sheridan tank, 15 tons with an aluminum hull which retired in 1997. October 2018 the 82nd got a company (or more?) of LAV25A2's, I'm not sure they would hold up against hundreds of Iran tanks.
Guessing the 82nd deploying is more symbolic (again), expident and for people control.
They were the first on the ground during Operation Desert Sheild. I don't remember if it was General Schwarzkopf or General Powell but one of them was talking about the 82nd and Desert Shield and how sending the 82nd was symbolic. If Hussain wanted to he could have rolled right over them.
At the time the heaviest armor the 82nd had was the M551 Sheridan tank, 15 tons with an aluminum hull which retired in 1997. October 2018 the 82nd got a company (or more?) of LAV25A2's, I'm not sure they would hold up against hundreds of Iran tanks.
Guessing the 82nd deploying is more symbolic (again), expident and for people control.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
tomahawk6 said:
They provided material support to local militia groups fighting that, from their perspective, were fighting against American invasion and occupation of their country. The real difference to this and American support of the Mujahadeen against Russia (for example), what side you are on. From one perspective you are supporting freedom fighters, from another you are engaging in state support to terrorism.
Just saying that it's not as simple as 'they are terrorists and we're the good guys', and we should probably leave the moral arguments out of it. Everyone's hands are dirty, but I think this was done exclusively for his own political gain, and had nothing to do with strategic US interests. That's what I find repulsive about this, because it will be everyday Americans who die as a result of his naked greed for power.
Similar threads
