“I came to understand something. If I try to put it into words now, it’s very simple: I realize that the world does not exist for my benefit. It followed that the ratio of pleasant and unpleasant things around me would not change. It wasn’t up to me.” — Banana Yoshimoto, Kitchen
In a U.S. drone attack Dec. 29, 2019, at the Iraqi airport, Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and five others were killed.In rare agreement, Democrats and Republicans spoke of Soleimani, and his history of actions hostile to the United States. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, and the wounding of thousands more.
The White House and the Pentagon provided different justifications for the action. President Donald Trump said it was to prevent “imminent” hostile actions. The Pentagon did not use the term imminent, a significant difference. Trump reported there was proof of what he claimed, but thus far he has not provided it publicly, as would seem warranted given the action taken.
Consultation with Congress did not occur. It appears that if the imminence claimed by the executive branch is true, it might justify the action being undertaken without consultation with Congress. Some are skeptical of such proof existing, in which case, the action would appear to be in violation of international law and the War Powers Act. Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle likely would have supported it – if there was an imminent threat.
My own reaction is to shed no tears for Soleimani. My problem is that I don’t trust Trump. Why not?
I don’t trust him because he has lied at an unprecedented rate. Most recently, he said that he ordered the hit on Soleimani in the interest of peace. Hmm. How does that work? Is he telling the truth this time?
I don’t trust him because of his faithlessness to the Kurds in northern Iraq, near Turkey. They were our allies.
I don’t trust him for a lot of reasons.
Was it a smart move? We tolerate bad people throughout the world. What about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia? Duterte of the Philippines?
Did it make sense to blast Soleimani to annihilation, and provide the Iranians with some sense of having been violated, and needful of revenge? Might it have made more sense to wait until when – if – Soleimani carried out some heinous deed? Would we, the US, have a stronger argument if we took action as response, thereafter, rather than providing Iran with the claim of revenge as a “righteous” countermove by the Iranians?
Trump’s move “toward international peace,” as he calls it, seems ill considered, impulsive, devoid of congressional approval, and not even in synch with the Pentagon.
An act of such extreme aggression (the assassination of Soleimani) doesn’t seem consistent with a search for international peace. It seems more like an impulsive act by a man who believes he has a really big brain that can make decisions in a vacuum. As I write this an air base used by the US in Kenya has come under attack. Is this the first of what the talking heads are predicting – an asymmetrical retaliation for Trump’s murder of Soleimani?
You are so correct that we aren’t able to believe a word Trump utters. He’s the boy who cried wolf. Not even the most true truth can be believed if it comes from his lips.
Regardless of what you,Basura, or I think about President Trump, he has more information about Iran’s plans of terrorism and war than any of us know or want to know. Iran has been the step-child of the Mideast forever and is considered the “mad dog” of the Muslim world and that takes some doing, since they can’t abide in a civilized world that isn’t Muslim.
This action, if it turns up the wick on war, it was bound to happen sooner and not later. Iran wants conflict, they may regret what they wish.
Presidents Obama and Bush acquiesced too much and Iran sensed weakness. Obama gave them $150 billion in cash and I’m sure they used it for weapons of war. Thank you, President Obama!