True to form:
Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani pic.twitter.com/YE54CqGCdr— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) January 3, 2020
Soleimani was a bad guy. Your hatred of @realDonaldTrump is literally forcing you to advocate for keeping a terrorist alive. https://t.co/26pg8nbB59— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 7, 2020
The Democrats literally ran a candidate who chortled "we came, we saw, he died" about Qaddafi and cheered a president who engaged in a wide-ranging drone war, and now we're hearing the media and Democrats lament Trump as an assassin for killing Soleimani?— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 7, 2020
“The guy who threatened another Holocaust of our people, and who had the means to try to carry it out, is gone. I hope that’s ok with you kids.” pic.twitter.com/0Wg2W2DLiU— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) January 7, 2020
7 Comments for “Lest We Forget”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Emotional appeals are useful for drumming up war fever, but not so useful for analyzing our strategic interests and options.
I think that cold-blooded analysis makes a lot more sense than “But he killed the gays!” as a way of looking at the Suleimani strike, but then I’ve been in a war and have no interest in drumming up emotional support for another one.
Mayor Buttigieg’s response was the kind of thing I have in mind when I talk about “cold-blooded analysis”:
Stephen, I know that you’ve been after Iran and Iraq (but not Saudi Arabia, for some reason) about “killing the gays”, but that’s not sufficient reason to take military action if it is not otherwise in our strategic interest. What troubles me about the Suleimani strike is that the administration appeared unable to put together a careful, reasoned explanation of why the strike was carried out at this time. That suggests to me that there was no “cold-blooded analysis” before acting, or not much.
posted by Kosh III on
” (but not Saudi Arabia, for some reason) about “killing the gays”,”
SA is far worse than Iran. They export violent Wahabbism, gave tacit funding to Daesh in it’s formative years and are far worse on human rights than Iran or almost any other country.
Osama bin Laden and most 9-11 culprits were Saudi, none Iranian or Iraqi.
But it’s oil oil OIL!
posted by JoshR on
Thanks to Republicans’ support for fracking, America is now oil independent and even an oil exporter — we’re no longer dependent on Middle East oil. Although I realize Democrats running for president want very much to ban fracking and reverse this development, hopefully that’s a fate the voters will choose to avoid in November.
posted by Edward Brown on
In Iran; Only a handful of exiled, leftist and green political parties have expressed lukewarm support for gay rights. I doubt that would change in the highly unlikely event that such parties could compete in national elections.
posted by Jorge on
I think that’s a toss up. With the competition comes the need to explain why one policy is better than the other. (Problem is, the competition comes from the right as well.)
Pete Buttigieg demands an explanation from President Trump. Do you buy it?
The same could happen with the execution of gays, at a minimum. It happened in Iraq (*sigh*) and it could happen in Iran.
posted by Jorge on
“Questionable to say the least” sounds about right.
I am 100% behind President Trump on this one. Iran has been ratcheting up the pressure for months in retaliation for our economic sanctions. We are at a time when risks have to be taken to prevent the certainty from inaction. The very idea that it is a strategic error to stop an attack that is inevitable just because it is not imminent (granted, that’s not the argument Buttigieg is making) is something I find bizarre.
“But when you’re dealing with the Middle East, you need to think about the next and the next and the next move, this is not checkers.”
One of the core failings of the Obama administration in my opinion is just this sort of micro-analysis paralysis, and its dissonance from that administration’s stated ideology and goals. Trump’s micro-analysis, with all its risks, is “built in” to the macro-analysis of his foreign policy. There is a time to strike and a time to pull back. That need not depend entirely on where every single piece is at a given point in space-time and what they are capable of doing. Momentum, the motion of every single piece counts as well.
Well, I’m glad there’s at least one Democrat in this country who’s not in deep mourning. I might give him another look, if he weren’t such a bigot.
posted by David S on
The US has never forgiven Iran for breaking away from its colonial empire back in 1979.