Thoughts and links from Instapundit.
We’ve been letting Iran get away with far too much for four decades. And the George W. Bush administration was feckless in that regard as well. I had thought one of the primary purposes of removing Saddam was to pressure Iran, but if that was part of the plan they botched it almost completely.
[Monday-morning update]
A Twitter thread from John Hayward on the pusillanimity of the media, the Obama administration, and the UN.
Almost completely?
AoS quotes a reporter that I think gives a good perspective on the death of Soleimani. He was a dangerous Iranian General on Iraqi soil. I think that’s a nearly perfect situation for President Trump in this current situation. It makes sense for Trump to take the initiative here.
That said, I’m worried to see how this unfolds over the next few days. I’m not worried about the US, as Iran can’t really hurt us. However, Iran can hurt a lot of people by continuing to escalate things.
As for the Democrats, there is nothing in this for them but a few fundraising dollars from the TDS inflicted supporters.
Another austere religious leader bites the dust.
Based on that Salon article, he was some kind of smoldering rock star.
From what I have read and studied folks like Paul Wolfowitz and others had convinced W that should Saddam fall, the well educated Iraqi people and the ex-patriots would rally around us and form a democratic republic that could serve as a bulwark against Iran.
I suspect this was a gross misread of not only Iraqi, Shia and Sunni culture, but a regional mistake in that we had no clue in how to nation build Iraq into such a state. There seems to have been little interest in Iraq to move beyond sectarianism. The full withdrawal under Obama in December 2011 and heralded by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC who televised the last American forces crossing the Iraq/Kuwait border etc. sealed our influence there and handed the country first over to ISIS and then over to Iran. I don’t see any good coming from any of this.
But the Deep State is there to protect us….
“the well educated Iraqi people and the ex-patriots would rally around us and form a democratic republic”
Some welcomed us and some didn’t but a lot of the fighting we saw was thanks to Iran. Bush should have done something about their meddling and it was a big mistake of Obama to partner with their proxies.
They could have (might turn out to be) a bulwark against Iran but I don’t understand why the people who led us to war and wrecked their country would think that taking an active role in shaping their government and imposing cultural changes was somehow beyond the pale.
I don’t think it was a question of beyond the pale as much as it was incompetence. We’re great at winning the war and losing the peace. I actually felt sorry for Ambassador Crocker and his Mission Impossible team cause we’d lost interest in Iraq and just wanted to walk away. So we did. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest the exact same thing would not happen in Iran. We have in the United States some of the best technocrats in the world for a world that needs statesmen.
Make that incompetence coupled with indifference. The hallmarks of techno narcissism. Ethos is not a word one finds in that dictionary.
I would add to the incompetence the role of the US media at the time. With Trump, that media flat out announced it would be an adversary against the President. During Bush, they still had pretense of neutral bias, while playing the part of adversary to the President. Consider how many Americans today actually believe that Bush was involved in planning 9/11.
To be clear, I’d only add the media’s role, as incompetence, indifference, and lack of imagination about what is possible were all part of the failure.
The main failure in both Afghanistan and Iraq was failure to follow up initial military victories with establishment of U.S.-led governments of occupation run by the military as we did very successfully in both Japan and Germany following WW2.
The Bush 43 administration, despite toying with the idea of doing so at least in Iraq, stupidly chose, in both cases, to almost immediately stand up native governments that were – inevitably – sectarian, tribal, corrupt and incompetent. And thus both remain.
The excuse was two-fold:
(1) to avoid any basis for the U.S. being characterized by its enemies as “imperialist.”
(2) to avoid any long-term commitment to “nation-building” as the pejorative phrase of the day had it.
Both reasons were fundamentally unsound.
(1) The U.S.’s enemies were going to characterize anything the U.S. did as “imperialism” – that’s what they do. Failure to stand up military governments of occupation simply afforded the U.S.’s enemies an entirely unearned heckler’s veto and guaranteed we would no longer be able to exercise decisive control of either war’s aftermath.
(2) “Nation-building” in the wake of a national-scale military conquest is not optional if one seeks to actively preclude a potentially endless mess. Failure of the Allies to insist on running Germany after WW1 virtually guaranteed there would be a WW2. Promptly putting the products of the same dysfunctional social and political milieus that were the root causes of both the Afghan and Iraq wars back in charge was, likewise, a guarantee of open-ended messiness.
We’ve now been in both places nearly two decades. Quite a bit of “nation-building” could have been accomplished during that time had we still been unequivocally in charge of both places. As was/is, however, we have simply spun our wheels to no good effect during that time with no good end in sight.
If we wind up going to war with Iran – and that is quite possible – we need to see that the aftermath of that war doesn’t complete a hat trick of successful conquests and failed post-bellum administrations.
The main failure in both Afghanistan and Iraq was failure to follow up initial military victories with establishment of U.S.-led governments of occupation run by the military as we did very successfully in both Japan and Germany following WW2.
True and curious though that at the time our Army generals were adamant about saying the military was ill-equipped to run a civil government in Iraq. Implying I suppose that the State Department was? Seems like something is missing from the training regimen of our modern military. What happened in the interim between WWII and now? Perhaps because there is no George C. Marshall? Should we bring back a command and a 5 star rank for this?
Or Douglas MacArthur.
Seems like something is missing from the training regimen of our modern military. What happened in the interim between WWII and now? Perhaps because there is no George C. Marshall? Should we bring back a command and a 5 star rank for this?
Why should that sort of thing be present in the training regimen? Among other things, it’d create the mistaken impression that the modern military should be doing such things.
Karl H.,
What makes you think the idea of the U.S. military operating a governmental apparat in formerly enemy territory is mistaken? Because the military is only supposed to kill people and break stuff? Please.
Every military service already has a JAG Corps, postal system, engineering arm, logistics arm, quartermasters and military police force. These components, in combination, quite successfully stood up temporary national administrations in both Germany and Japan.
“Temporary,” in both these cases, was about a decade. Iraq and Afghanistan would require longer pacifications – a minimum of two human generations would be my best guess – but we’ve now wasted roughly half that amount of time spinning our wheels instead of being halfway to transitions to modern, rational rule in both places.
Where the real mistake came in was putting U.S. military affairs far too much into the hands of ill-prepared professional managers like Robert McNamara and academics like James Schlesinger. Experience manipulating quarterly financials or making one’s way in the hot-house, low-consequence, world of academic politics have proven to be skill sets poorly suited to application where the lives of men and nations are on the line.
K. Hollowell:Why should that sort of thing be present in the training regimen? Among other things, it’d create the mistaken impression that the modern military should be doing such things.
D. Eagleson: The main failure in both Afghanistan and Iraq was failure to follow up initial military victories with establishment of U.S.-led governments of occupation run by the military as we did very successfully in both Japan and Germany following WW2.
I’m not sure who you are disagreeing with here. Mr. Eagleson is pointing out that it was US led governments of occupation run by the military that led to successfully bringing Germany and Japan back as strong allies. You appear to disagree? In Iraq we tried to leverage the State Department to do that and I think we all agree it failed miserably. If it has to be an Army Of Occupation wouldn’t you want your Army to train to do that? Otherwise how can you expect success? What is your alternative? There is precedent in the Army for this, I cite the Green Berets aka special forces. Foreign Internal Defense is one of their nine doctrinal missions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_internal_defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces
Sorry for the typo of your last name. I meant Karl Hallowell my apologies.
So we’ve had then the Friedensführer, Gajin Shogun and now we need the Khallas Caliph?
Yes.
Does anyone really think we wouldn’t have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we’d told Stormin’ Norman to go all the way through Baghdad – killing Saddam and all those charming rascals who would later figure in the Most Wanted Deck of Cards – and up to at least the de facto Kurdish border, then turn around and run the place until it was shipshape?
Or, failing that, to have issued similar orders to Tommy Franks?
Two generations of feckless Bushes made very bad strategic calls in Iraq and Afghanistan. The late elder Bush, having lived through WW2 and its aftermath, is particularly blameworthy for having failed to assimilate the relevant lessons of his times.
Iran is in an interesting situation. Open war puts them at certain risk of ending up on the losing side of a Shia-Sunni civil war. There is also a severe domestic instability issue – the regime no longer has as sure a hold on power.
So, do they lash out and kick off a war? My guess is no, but it’s a tough call, because we’re not dealing with rational actors here. So, maybe.
Still, especially given the reports (if true) that Iran was about to embark on major ops against us, but even if that isn’t true, Suleimani was a man who very much needed killing. That has been true for a very long time.
My guess; this was not planned. It was a case of a target of opportunity, requiring a fast go-no-go decision. The decision got made, and it was the right one. Thank you, President Trump.
They wont step up and attack us directly. They have seen us kick the crap out of their buddies since the 90’s and know they can’t stand up to us face to face. Any response will be from proxies. But does Iran think that Americans will view the actions of Iranian proxies as unconnected to Iran?
A rational analysis by Iran would conclude that we will now respond to actions by their proxies as if they were from Iran directly. However, I doubt the rationality of the mullahs. So, my guess is, we’re in for uncertain times.
As for what Iran might do – one option they might IMHO go for is to act against what they see as our proxies. I worry that they’ll go after a civilian airliner belonging to one of our allies. They do love taking hostages, after all.
BTW, snatching a western airliner would be trivial for Iran, seeing as a great many thereof trail their coats right through Iranian airspace every day (Incredibly risky, IMHO). It’s even easier if the Iranians decide to just shoot one down.
Given that there are still aspects of U.S. operations during WW2 that have yet to be declassified, I suspect it might be sometime well into the 22nd century before the full story of this strike emerges.
My guess is that one of those bits that will be held close to the vest longest is that the intel needed to pull this operation off almost certainly came from the Israelis. They’ve been getting their hooks into both the civilian and military comms and command and control systems of their opposition for decades.
Dick if you’re into real intrigue maybe this was the first step in a multi step process of disengagement. We kill a problem dude for the Supreme leader, allow a token reprisal and the Iranians start to play ball on the nuclear and a host of regional issues. Diplomacy at this level has the art of the double cross honed to such a high degree where the knife in the back is indistinguishable from a heart attack. All just in time for the 2020 election cycle. But hey I’m just a cynic.
I’m just wondering which ambassador we decided to sacrifice?
Sounds like a story you might well be able to successfully pitch to Hollywood. The politics would be congenial and complete fictionality of a story line has, Lord knows, never been much of an impediment in Tinseltown.
But it lacks credibility with the actual Trump as President – as opposed to the caricature Trump of SNL and the rest of the American Progressive Left. He’s a deal-maker. This sort of deal, with one party doing all the heavy-lifting up front followed by no enforcement mechanism should the other side then decide to default or double-cross is not something that would pass even a cursory smell test with someone like DJT. For that sort of thing to be seriously entertained, one needs a self-important credulous twit in the Presidency – like, say, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Oh it’s totally made up of course. But the up-front heavy lifting does benefit us, after all, we’ve done that already.
What they do is gonna have less to do with Iran’s interests and strategy per se than with their internal politics and who thinks doing what will let them fill the lower vacuum left by Suleimani’s departure.
I’d guess they go for something flashy like trying to seize a US embassy somewhere, but your guess is probably as good as mine, or the CIAs…
Well this man would disagree and calls it pathetic .
On the professors point number 1.
The narrator would say “The Iranians believe they been at war with America for 67 years. Since the CIA help over throw democratically elected government. Then help install and support a butcher and security apparatus that waged war on Iranian culture for 16 years.”
TDS isn’t going to solve our problems with Iran. Any more than air shipping 400 million plus onto an Iranian tarmac did. Or a phony nuclear deal that after 10 years of Kabuki theater left the door wide open for full speed ahead.
We didn’t send in the tanks when the Ayatollah took over Iran. Nor after they violated international norms and seized our embassy even when doing so is effectively an act of war. I think we at that point made it abundantly clear we had no interest in the internal machinations of Iran. But that’s all insufficient for the modern terror state. You think “Death to America”, is really only a talking point? The people that toppled Mohammad Mosaddegh are all long since dead. Iran has been in control of its own fate since 1979. Geez.
Hey so you disagree with Trumps words?, Who has TDS now?
Last I checked Iran hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon and Trump ripped up the deal 18 months ago. Also 11 1/2 Years of nuclear weapon free Iran is better than anything we had with NORKs.
We didn’t send in the tanks when the Ayatollah took over Iran. Nor after they violated international norms and seized our embassy even when doing so is effectively an act of war. I think we at that point made it abundantly clear we had no interest in the internal machinations of Iran. But that’s all insufficient for the modern terror state. You think “Death to America”, is really only a talking point? The people that toppled Mohammad Mosaddegh are all long since dead. Iran has been in control of its own fate since 1979. Geez.
Narrator adds “Prior to the Iranian students seizing the embassy, the US seized Iranian property and refused to release a criminal to stand trial. After the hostages were released within 2 years United States supported a local thug’s invasion and condoned the butchering of many more with chemical weapons.”
Correct me if I am wrong but by my count the US forces have killed 292 Iranians directly since 1980, I am having trouble finding any direct killings of US citizens by Iranian forces (other than ones caused by captivity for being in Iran).
Any Deaths attributed to Iran , are by proxy and according to intelligence.
<S> And would rely on information from known “Treasonous deep state” who would have us believe that the Russians hacked our Election to have Trump win which would just be NUTTY to believe those people, they have never been Right and have lied to us . While covering for our “allies” in the region forces killings of US citizens </S>
It the end it wrong to point all the blame at Iran, We are the ones that have been mucking around in their territory and region and have been doing it before any specific provocation of theirs. Killing of Suleimani is a clear escalation of the conflict and more likely to Martyr him and just have a replacement that will be as bad. Is killing him a good thing yea but will it be a marginal gain for the US interests at best and more likely to further destabilizing the Iraqi government and also lead to a another war that have to result into a regime change which we are ill prepared to try again. Which continues our cycle of accusers and victimization and distrust in the area. We have poisoned that well too much.
Not even wrong. Iranian students. Right.
The real Iranian students I knew here in the US were desperately trying to get their student visas renewed both before and after the revolution. The most eager guys in the US seeking marriage at the time were Iranian dudes. Their parents desperately trying to get their money out of the country to help them and likely risking arrest trying to do so. Ironic that before the revolution I used to see Iranians parade around campus wearing the slit cut out masks protesting the shah. None to be found after the revolution. Tell me which is worse?
Did they ever figure out which Iranians blew up our embassy in Lebanon in 1983, killing 17, and later blew up our Marine barracks there, killing 241?
I also missed the part where we made the Shah of Iran the Shah of Iran. I kind of thought his parents did that in the old fashioned way.
I’m sure it was those peace loving Iranian “students” with PhD’s in chemical engineering…
I’m sorry George, I’m not aware that Iranians were the ones who killed those people, can you give me the names of the Iranians who pressed the button on the bombs ofthe Barracks or Embassy attacks. Or we relying on the deep state lies?
The deep state that also tells us that the Russians hacked the election for Trump. The Deep state that also told us there was significant WMD in Iraq. The Deep state that tells us the House of Saud had nothing to do with 9/11.
I dunno George the Iranians believe it and their victimization. Kinda like people here believe the plan to destroy America and give the presidency to a Kenyan Puppet was cooked up in Chicago basement of some communist terrorist bomb-maker.
Oh wait we put someone that believes some of that in the White House.
The Shah with out the Americans help would of been deposed play boy in England without the Americans/ Brits/Mossad money and support and setting up his security apparatus and allowing him to have tens of millions to refer to him as King of Kings.
It doesn’t matter whether it was literally Iranians or their proxies. Either way, it was an(other) act of war.
Rand American Proxies invaded Iran and killed factor of 10 s more with in 3 year of the revolution.
Iran has been at war with us for forty years. We’ve only recently decided to stop pretending it hasn’t been.
Rand tell me how many American have been directly killed by Iranian troops/forces? As I said American troops have directly pulled the trigger and killed 292 Iranians by my count since 1980.
Yes yes the deep state tell us Iranian proxies have killed Hundreds to thousands of Americans at least. Conversely American proxies have killed hundred of thousands of Iranians.
What “American proxies” have “killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians”?
What “American proxies” have “killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians”?
Um I shared the picture but guess you need it spelled out Rand.
That last article has the Iraqis killing a million Iranians, though figure it safe to say American support easily got 100,000+ Iranians killed.
So Americans have supported proxy war against Iran 38 years ago. Safe to say their hasn’t been any Iranian supported American deaths by that point. Only Deaths of Americans by that point was by Ill advised and ill equipped rescue mission that killed 1 Iranian civilian and cost 8 Americans lives due to our own screw ups.
It is monumentally idiotic to call Saddam Hussein an “American proxy.” We wanted both sides to lose.
That beside the point, we still supported Anti Iranian forces in the death of 100k+ Iranians.
It’s not beside the point. We were going to support whichever side was losing. It remains idiotic to imagine that Saddam was our ally, or our “proxie.” He was fighting for his reasons, not ours.
Um usually proxies fight for their own reason and just happens to align with their benefactors goals.
We never gave Iran support when Iraq initially ran rough sod over Iran. That was left to Israel, who made a tidy profit. When we finally found out we had turned a blind eye to it. But what we going to call out the only true ally (besides the USS Liberty Incident) in the region. Then we got the Contra affair where US knowingly supported Israeli arms dealing efforts for hostage release. But officially see Operation Staunch the US was to prevent arms sales to Iran.
As far as any Iranians knew the US and US allies Saudi Arabia supported Iraq in the war. And the Mullahs were well aware of the support the Iraqi got and the pittance of clandestine support of unsophisticated weapons and gas masks.
So Point still stands that US Provided support to the death of 100k+ Iranians along with a long history of US antagonism against the Iranian People. Giving real fuel to the Mullah’s Propaganda campaign and the Nationalistic anti globalist tendencies of the majority of Iranians. Hmm ANTI GLOBALIST wonder where I heard that before….
Rand really if you had to choose between the Mullahs and Saddam who would you choose? No weaseling out and pick the 3rd option , 1 side has to win.
We have never made war on the Iranian people. But their regime has been at war with us for forty years.
“Any Deaths attributed to Iran , are by proxy and according to intelligence.”
The boss is responsible for what their employees are ordered to do but the use of proxies does allow Iran’s allies and useful idiots to ignore what is taking place. Much like the DNC media lying about Trump, people like me aren’t the audience, people like you are.
That man appears to be a retard so so what?
When Trump does nothing, Democrats lose it. When Trump does something, Democrats lose it. We could take them seriously if they acted in good faith rather than schizos. The only consistent positions Democrats take are siding with our enemies and rooting against the USA.
A sign Democrats aren’t serious is the claim that doing anything means all out war. There are any number of things that can be done short of war and the more Democrats freak out over everything, the less credible they become. Remember, the world economy was going to go into a Depression, Trump was going to give the world away to Russia, Trump partnered with Russia during the election, Trump is worse than Hitler, Trump is going to put gays and minorities in concentration camps, Trump’s tax cuts only benefited the rich, the economy is horrible, Trump hates Jews, and on and on and on?
Sorry but ya’ll crazy.
“This man” wants the Scourge of Big Gulps to be our next president.
McGee maybe put down the big gulps , man referred to was the video and the words of Trump. Want to tell me what Trump said in the video is wrong? Or how is the situation different? Or we just using tired one liners and no substance.
Then “the narrator” is a dolt. While there are doubtless lots of people in U.S. university faculty lounges who think “the Iranians” regard themselves as having been “at war” with the U.S. since the Mosaddegh overthrow, the only Iranians who do are – maybe – the tiny minority of Marxists in the country. Tiny because the Ayatollahs have been hunting them to near-extinction for four decades.
The leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, have certainly regarded themselves as at war with the U.S. for 40 years and haven’t been the least bit bashful about saying so. What the typical Iranian-in-the-street thinks is neither knowable nor relevant as none of them gets a say.
Declare a war and one has to expect at least the possibility of the occasional casualty. If you can’t dance, don’t open the ball.
As for Mosaddegh, he was no democrat. His first parliamentary “majority” was engineered by cancelling elections after his Teheran-based National Front deputies were seated but before his opposition in the provinces could be seated. During much of his administration he ruled by decree under a grant of emergency power he was granted by his tame parliament. De facto, he was a socialist would-be dictator who came to power in what amounted to his own coup.
The Soviets never gave up coveting Iran even after the U.S. and Britain made them leave its northern marches after WW2. They always had an eye out for ambitious potential stooges in pretty much every country they didn’t already control. There were a lot of Mosaddeghs back in the day, especially in Latin America, including Arbenz, Castro, Allende and Ortega. A few succeeded. Most did not.
It looks to me like the Suleimani strike was a case of overconfidence combined with sharp people on our side. He had UN restrictions on his travels, and showed up in Iraq where we are prosecuting a war. A general working with our enemies is fair game. He was bullet-proof, so our side used missiles. He was warned. Who’s next?
It shows how confident Iran was in waging proxy wars against us without us doing anything to fight back. I’m sure this wasn’t the first time he was in Iraq.
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of fellers. One could hope for something much more protracted and painful, but you can’t have everything.
It should send messages in many directions. It should give Kim something to think about when he wakes up in the middle of the night. Putin can posture all he wants, but the truth is that he’s in Syria at our and Israel’s sufferance. China is still at least 20 years from being able to do anything to secure their supply of oil. The Iraqis now know the cost of sitting around with their thumbs up their asses instead of ending the “demonstrations”. The Saudis should be coming to the realization that we aren’t that concerned with their ability to ship oil.
All that with just four little missiles, that’s economy of forces.
^^
It looks like Iraq could turn out the same as Vietnam, with Iran playing the part of North Korea.
It certainly came close to that under Obama.
Good Riddance to a Bad Man
The death of Qassem Suleimani is not an occasion to mourn.
-Jonah Goldberg
https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/good-riddance-to-a-bad-man
“The election of Donald Trump—and the subsequent transformation of so much of the right—only compounds my skepticism. I’ve lost my taste for the rah-rah boosterism, the glib way a cult of personality or the cult of the presidency substitutes for arguments. I don’t think even at my most partisan or asinine depths I’ve ever been close to the sort of insecure goon Sebastian Gorka is on any given Tuesday. But the mere thought of being on the same team as him elicits the sort of pre-vomit reflux I normally associate with encountering the interior of under-serviced Porta-Johns in August. ”
I find it amusing Jonah, is not comfortable with Gorka, but also Sebastian Gorka is useful tool for Jonah’s article.
I like to imagine that the killing of Suleimani, has helped Jonah Goldberg get his groove back.
Anyhow I like the article.
I liked that Suleimani was killed in Iraq.
I think Trump spent capital to kill him, and I appreciate the investment. Not sure it’s going to all work well, it might turn a sure election victory into a horse race- or a risky move.
But I don’t think it will lead to WWIII, rather I think more likely to lead to peace in the Middle East, but that is long road, and unlikely to get any good news regarding this before Nov.
Ohmigaw were all goona bedraftedwhywouldTrumpdothis impeach him now beforeI have to flee tocanada
Suleimani didn’t kill himself.