Soleimani Death

[Peterluger]

Sorry if this is late, and take this with a grain of salt, but I am fortunate to be friends with many service members actively serving deployments in certain locations who have given me their thoughts about the Soleimani strike.

Strikes on targets of interest (unnamed or otherwise) happen quite frequently. The often-cited statistic, X strikes under the Obama administration, is true. Under Obama, and currently, under Trump, there are strikes on targets of interest just about every day, although we do not heart about them in the news. Think of a bunch of militants in a truck riding around Iraq. That is essentially the target.

Now when you have intel that a high-priority target (Soleimani) is rolling around in a country he is not supposed to be in (Iraq), which is protected by another country he is actively plotting against (the U.S.), you would almost certainly expect a strike against him. Considering the recent attack on the Embassy, that even more justifies the strike on Soleimani. He probably would've been targeted regardless of the Embassy attack. That is just how things are. He was a justifiable military target who was at-the-time engaged in warfare against the United States.

The strike was not intended to be political (although I see how it can be seen that way), it was going to happen someday regardless, target just happened to be the No. 2 dude in charge of Iranian shenanigans.

TLDR - these strikes happen just about every day on no-name targets, this dude just happened to be important enough, and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He wasn’t supposed to be in Iraq? According to who, your military friends?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[electropartyogram]

He wasn’t supposed to be in Iraq? According to who, your military friends?

An Iranian general who is the leader of a terrorist militia, who has been actively killing Iraqis and American forces for years. Of course, he wasn't supposed to be in Iraq, he was actively plotting against Iraq and the United States. So yes, according to literally everyone with a brain and some common sense, he was not supposed to be in Iraq.

 

[electropartyogram]

Good article by Reuters:

Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq

In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad.

www.reuters.com

 

[Lawpy]

So much drama centered around the US.

Gawwd... some one else please take the torch for a moment.

Apparently, many people want USA to get involved in the Venezuelan mess.

 

[Peterluger]

An Iranian general who is the leader of a terrorist militia, who has been actively killing Iraqis and American forces for years. Of course, he wasn't supposed to be in Iraq, he was actively plotting against Iraq and the United States. So yes, according to literally everyone with a brain and some common sense, he was not supposed to be in Iraq.

Did you friends also say the US is supposed to be there instead?

 

[electropartyogram]

Did you friends also say the US is supposed to be there instead?

We have agreements (currently, could change) with the Iraqi government to be there. As well as an Embassy.

 

[Goro]

IDK. A great question. Trump could say, vote us out? See ya. I'm not sure there are enough Sunnis in Iraq to take on Iran again. But I think there is enough bad blood that Iraq wont publically ally with Iran. China and Russia might ooze into the void left by us. So I dont think Trump will pull us out. Should Iran engage in any major conflict, I think their global terror network will diminish, so I dont think they will engage anywhere on a major scale. I think Irans responses in the ME are limited. I would expect a terror attack on a diplomat or govt employee in the west as Irans answer.

Bolded is very true. While Iraq is a majority Shiite country, they're also Arabs, and there is a LONG enmity between the Iranians and the Arabs.

There would be a power vacuum that others (mostly likely Turkey and the Russians) would try to exploit. That will not work out well for them either (Old Turkish saying: "Never involve yourself in the affairs of the Arabs"), as the two are historic enemies. Right now they're allies of (unnatural) convenience, which already has its fault lines.

 

[MoMoGesiologist]

Old Turkish saying: "Never involve yourself in the affairs of the Arabs”

Where was this advice the last couple decades/century?

 

[sevoflurane]

French, NZ, British forces still there.
Will there really be a void? Honest question.

 

[Lawpy]

From what I'm seeing (from Financial Times at least), Europeans appear to be more sympathetic towards Iran than US

 

[pgg]

French, NZ, British forces still there.
Will there really be a void? Honest question.

I am still supremely skeptical that anyone is going anywhere. Iraq's parliament, heavily influenced by Iran, passed a non binding resolution, which is a notch more impactful than a sternly worded letter from the UN. Actual decisions get made in a less mob-like manner.

A whole week ago Iraqis were demonstrating in the streets protesting Iran's influence in their government. While they are probably no happier about this latest event than they are about any of the things that have led to a multinational force being in their country for near-17 years, they know the score. They don't want Iran running things and they know the fast track to that outcome is for the US and other coalition forces to leave. They've already been brutalized by ISIS once and they don't want that group to recover.

Anything is possible but some things are a lot more likely than others.

 

[Mikkel]

I am still supremely skeptical that anyone is going anywhere. Iraq's parliament, heavily influenced by Iran, passed a non binding resolution, which is a notch more impactful than a sternly worded letter from the UN. Actual decisions get made in a less mob-like manner.

A whole week ago Iraqis were demonstrating in the streets protesting Iran's influence in their government. While they are probably no happier about this latest event than they are about any of the things that have led to a multinational force being in their country for near-17 years, they know the score. They don't want Iran running things and they know the fast track to that outcome is for the US and other coalition forces to leave. They've already been brutalized by ISIS once and they don't want that group to recover.

Anything is possible but some things are a lot more likely than others.

If the USA is needed by Iraq to bomb some ISIS fighters and the USA gets invited in, then everyone is happy.

I don't think majority Iraq wants their country to turn into a warzone again by Iran. I think they'd be ok with whatever is necessary to accomplish peace. Is the "benefit" of being an Iranian satellite worth it to subject their neighbors to non-stop violence?

 

[Lawpy]

Iran Fires Missiles at U.S. Forces in Iraq

Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, the Pentagon said late Tuesday. Iran said the attacks were retaliation for the U.S. killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

www.wsj.com

 

[HighPriest]

I am still supremely skeptical that anyone is going anywhere. Iraq's parliament, heavily influenced by Iran, passed a non binding resolution, which is a notch more impactful than a sternly worded letter from the UN. Actual decisions get made in a less mob-like manner.

A whole week ago Iraqis were demonstrating in the streets protesting Iran's influence in their government. While they are probably no happier about this latest event than they are about any of the things that have led to a multinational force being in their country for near-17 years, they know the score. They don't want Iran running things and they know the fast track to that outcome is for the US and other coalition forces to leave. They've already been brutalized by ISIS once and they don't want that group to recover.

Anything is possible but some things are a lot more likely than others.

It'll end up being a reshuffle of the shells, so to speak. A few units leave, maybe some go to Kuwait, a few others move in but more or less under the news radar. Like when a kid moves their broccoli around on the plate. Maybe hides some under the mashed potatoes. One might slip under the table. But it's still there. it just looks like they've eaten it.
No one's leaving Iraq. Iraq voting for US withdraw is as much a tip of the hat to Iran as anything. We won't want to leave due to the obvious strategic importance of being there. Any Iraqi who supports an independent (sic) country won't want us to leave. But at the same time they can't be sure what the future holds, so they need to at least seem outraged by the "assasination" (how did that guy keep misspelling that word? My autocorrect catches it every time.) I try to think about it from their perspective. if we have, say an administrative change of sufficient magnitude (likely or not), maybe we'll lose interest in them in a year and pull out. Then it's just them and Iran left in the holding cell together. You gotta hedge your bets.
I have no doubt that the average Iraqi, even if they don't support Iran, is not happy about current events. Why would they be? They've had nothing but strife and war and all of the accompanying fixings for decades now. This just turned up the heat a little bit. Even if I were an Iraqi who wasn't necessarily unhappy to see Soleimani dead, I'd be unhappy that things have potentially ramped up a bit. It's easy for us, lounging at home or work, to say that nothing is going to escalate (and I don't think it will either), but from their perspective anything can happen and in fact has happened relatively recently.

 

[Peterluger]

It'll end up being a reshuffle of the shells, so to speak. A few units leave, maybe some go to Kuwait, a few others move in but more or less under the news radar. Like when a kid moves their broccoli around on the plate. Maybe hides some under the mashed potatoes. One might slip under the table. But it's still there. it just looks like they've eaten it.
No one's leaving Iraq. Iraq voting for US withdraw is as much a tip of the hat to Iran as anything. We won't want to leave due to the obvious strategic importance of being there. Any Iraqi who supports an independent (sic) country won't want us to leave. But at the same time they can't be sure what the future holds, so they need to at least seem outraged by the "assasination" (how did that guy keep misspelling that word? My autocorrect catches it every time.) I try to think about it from their perspective. if we have, say an administrative change of sufficient magnitude (likely or not), maybe we'll lose interest in them in a year and pull out. Then it's just them and Iran left in the holding cell together. You gotta hedge your bets.
I have no doubt that the average Iraqi, even if they don't support Iran, is not happy about current events. Why would they be? They've had nothing but strife and war and all of the accompanying fixings for decades now. This just turned up the heat a little bit. Even if I were an Iraqi who wasn't necessarily unhappy to see Soleimani dead, I'd be unhappy that things have potentially ramped up a bit. It's easy for us, lounging at home or work, to say that nothing is going to escalate (and I don't think it will either), but from their perspective anything can happen and in fact has happened relatively recently.

Did you know that Soleimani effectively drove ISIS away from the major cities?

 

[HighPriest]

Did you know that Soleimani effectively drove ISIS away from the major cities?

I have read that. I also understand that he liked Cool Water cologne. I'm not sure in what way you feel that relates to my comment.

 

[deleted126335]

Did you know that Soleimani effectively drove ISIS away from the major cities?

"A pity they both can't lose"

-Henry Kissinger commenting on the Iran/Iraq war.

 

[Peterluger]

I have read that. I also understand that he liked Cool Water cologne. I'm not sure in what way you feel that relates to my comment.

You’re saying Iraqis didn’t want Iran there. Iran played a big part in moving ISIS away from large cities where ISIS were slaughtering Iraqis

 

[Peterluger]

"A pity they both can't lose"

-Henry Kissinger commenting on the Iran/Iraq war.

You’re comparing the government of Iran to Saddam’s Iraq?

 

[Mikkel]

You’re saying Iraqis didn’t want Iran there. Iran played a big part in moving ISIS away from large cities where ISIS were slaughtering Iraqis

Kurdish socialists helped with ISIS. Iran helped with ISIS. Russia helped with ISIS.

Are you saying that we should be kissing Putin's fecal thoroughfare just because he did a solid in killing terrorists?

 

[Mikkel]

Did you know that Soleimani effectively drove ISIS away from the major cities?

So we have to worship an Iranian terrorist (Mani) because he killed other Islamic terrorists (ISIS)?

 

[Peterluger]

So we have to worship an Iranian terrorist (Mani) because he killed other Islamic terrorists (ISIS)?

Which sane person said that Soleimani himself was a terrorist? He trained and funded terrorists (which the US has also done before). But he himself was a military commander who protected his country. Not to say he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of many civilians along the way.

 

[Peterluger]

Kurdish socialists helped with ISIS. Iran helped with ISIS. Russia helped with ISIS.

Are you saying that we should be kissing Putin's fecal thoroughfare just because he did a solid in killing terrorists?

I’m saying, and this might blow your mind, that it might be possible that Iraqis would rather have Iran’s help in defeating ISIS, rather than white corn-fed farm boys from the midwest who joined the military out of xenophobic sentiment, with the sole purpose of perpetrating violence

 

[Mikkel]

Which sane person said that Soleimani himself was a terrorist? He trained and funded terrorists (which the US has also done before). But he himself was a military commander.

He organized and coordinated terrorist actions.

Bin Laden was a terrorist, and he organized and coordinated terrorist actions.

 

[Mikkel]

white corn-fed farm boys from the midwest joined the military out of xenophobic sentiment, with the sole purpose of perpetrating violence

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Which sane person said that Soleimani himself was a terrorist? He trained and funded terrorists (which the US has also done before). But he himself was a military commander who protected his country. Not to say he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of many civilians along the way.

Who said he was a terrorist? I believe, Bush 43, Obama, the UN and the EU. If I'm wrong, on a couple, I'll admit it. Even Chuck Schumer said no one should shed a tear over his death. Guy was bad news. Certainly no freedom fighter.

 

[pgg]

So we have to worship an Iranian terrorist (Mani) because he killed other Islamic terrorists (ISIS)?

No, not what he said at all.

He's suggesting that since General Soleimani and Iranian-backed militias helped fight ISIS, we should be thankful for that and give him and dictator-for-life Khamenei a pass for waging war against us and our allies throughout the Middle East the last few decades. Also, he's not a terrorist because he hasn't pulled a trigger or planted a bomb personally in a little while.

They are dumb things to say, but that's what the words mean as he has strung them together.

I'll concede his point that at the moment he was killed, he was actually a uniformed combatant waging war against us, and not a terrorist. At that time he was a lawful military target, who would have been fully entitled to Geneva Convention protections, had he been captured instead of blown up. Alas, first aid was not in the cards, and the General's remains were returned to his homeland for a state funeral.[1]



[1] Complete with a stampede that killed 50 mourners

 

[Peterluger]

He organized and coordinated terrorist actions.

Bin Laden was a terrorist, and he organized and coordinated terrorist actions.

Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?

Who said he was a terrorist? I believe, Bush 43, Obama, the UN and the EU. If I'm wrong, on a couple, I'll admit it. Even Chuck Schumer said no one should shed a tear over his death. Guy was bad news. Certainly no freedom fighter.

George W. Bush coordinated the displacement and murder of 1 million iraqis, so that in itself throws your argument out the window. Obama blew up a wedding in Pakistan with drones. Schumer is a shill for Israel, you shouldn’t listen to a word he says. Yes Soleimani was a bad guy, but to call this guy as having been a terrorist is incredibly myopic.

 

[Peterluger]

No, not what he said at all.

He's suggesting that since General Soleimani and Iranian-backed militias helped fight ISIS, we should be thankful for that and give him and dictator-for-life Khamenei a pass for waging war against us and our allies throughout the Middle East the last few decades. Also, he's not a terrorist because he hasn't pulled a trigger or planted a bomb personally in a little while.

They are dumb things to say, but that's what the words mean as he has strung them together.

I'll concede his point that at the moment he was killed, he was actually a uniformed combatant waging war against us, and not a terrorist. At that time he was a lawful military target, who would have been fully entitled to Geneva Convention protections, had he been captured instead of blown up. Alas, first aid was not in the cards, and the General's remains were returned to his homeland for a state funeral.[1]



[1] Complete with a stampede that killed 50 mourners

Was he supposed to be nice to US soldiers stationed in the “middle east”? Especially after the history of US support for Saddam and the Taliban, and the complete destruction of Iraq along with war-time atrocities by US forces?

 

[pgg]

white corn-fed farm boys from the midwest who joined the military out of xenophobic sentiment, with the sole purpose of perpetrating violence

As of 2016, enlisted US Army personnel are approximately 47% non-white persons of color [pdf link], you obnoxious racist. In the officer ranks, it's 28% non-white, mainly for socioeconomic reasons.

The US population is 27.6% non-white so the Army's racial makeup is approximately twice as diverse as the population at large.

 

[pgg]

Was he supposed to be nice to US soldiers stationed in the “middle east”? Especially after the history of US support for Saddam and the Taliban, and the complete destruction of Iraq along with war-time atrocities by US forces?

I'm saying he was an enemy and I'm glad he's dead.

If you want to wring your hands apologetically, that's up to you, but I won't play that game.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Was Ronald Reagan a terrorist?

George W. Bush coordinated the displacement and murder of 1 million iraqis, so that in itself throws your argument out the window. Obama blew up a wedding in Pakistan with drones. Schumer is a shill for Israel, you shouldn’t listen to a word he says. Yes Soleimani was a bad guy, but to call this guy as having been a terrorist is incredibly myopic.

So what's your excuse for the UN and the EU designating him a terrorist? I also dont believe the moniker he carried was myopic. I guess one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[HighPriest]

You’re saying Iraqis didn’t want Iran there. Iran played a big part in moving ISIS away from large cities where ISIS were slaughtering Iraqis

I actually did not say that at all.

 

[HighPriest]

Which sane person said that Soleimani himself was a terrorist? He trained and funded terrorists (which the US has also done before). But he himself was a military commander who protected his country. Not to say he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of many civilians along the way.

I don't actually blame Soleimani at all for doing what he did. I even understand why he did what he did. I also understand why the US turned him to dust. War is war, and right and wrong often depends entirely upon what side you're fighting. But things like this are what happen when you play a high stakes game.

I’m saying, and this might blow your mind, that it might be possible that Iraqis would rather have Iran’s help in defeating ISIS, rather than white corn-fed farm boys from the midwest who joined the military out of xenophobic sentiment, with the sole purpose of perpetrating violence

Undoubtedly some Iraqis would much rather have Iran present. Others would probably rather have Saddam (I mean, at least -some- people did very well under his regime). And then others would rather not have either of those guys calling the shots, particularly Sunni and (at least at one points) Kurds. and that may not mean the US would be their first choice, but you play with what you have.
But, clearly, you don't know many people in the military. There are a lot of criticisms that I also have with the US military industrial complex and how it attracts despondent youths (and of course it isn't just the US military that does so), and I'm sure there are some people who join specifically because they're xenophobic. But not very many.

 

[deleted126335]

You’re comparing the government of Iran to Saddam’s Iraq?

Well, they both are/were brutal, intolerant, treat(ed) women as chattel, enemies of the US and our allies, so there is that.

 

[HighPriest]

I'll concede his point that at the moment he was killed, he was actually a uniformed combatant waging war against us, and not a terrorist. At that time he was a lawful military target, who would have been fully entitled to Geneva Convention protections, had he been captured instead of blown up. Alas, first aid was not in the cards, and the General's remains were returned to his homeland for a state funeral.[1]

And as you said later: it really isn't relevant. They can say they killed him because he was a terrorist. They can say they killed him because he was an enemy combatant. Ultimately there was a hostile entity (to the US) who had orchestrated violence against the US, and the US retaliated.

Now, you can argue that he had just cause to strike against the US (whether he was a trigger man or not). You can argue for a dictatorial, oppressive regime like the Iranian government. I get WHY they had him there doing what he was doing. They were looking out for their self-interests. So was the US. He wasn't there volunteering in a red cross tent. He wasn't there on vacation.

And while I understand why Soleimani did what he did in an attempt to further Iran's interests, I'm certainly not unhappy he's not doing that thing he does anymore because he and I don't stand for the same things.

If we'd rather have a discussion about how military hostility is generally unethical, well that's fine.

 

[dhb]

I'm saying he was an enemy and I'm glad he's dead.

If you want to wring your hands apologetically, that's up to you, but I won't play that game.

He probably wasn't Mr Nice guy but let's not pretend that US presence in Irak has anything to do with good intentions.

 

[Peterluger]

He probably wasn't Mr Nice guy but let's not pretend that US presence in Irak has anything to do with good intentions.

exactly my point. People saying he should be killed “because hes the enemy” is a little ironic and funny. Think about what these people are saying. I mean Iraq is right next to Iran. Obviously they have a vested interest in NOT allowing their neighbors to become US bases, given the history of US interventionism in these countries. Put yourself in Iran’s shoes. Regardless of whether they are a clerical regime, when u have an imperialistic force setting up shop in a neighboring country, youd be stupid not to act to protect yourself.

 

[Mikkel]

when u have an imperialistic force setting up shop in a neighboring country, youd be stupid not to act to protect yourself.

So... You plan an attack on that country's embassy? How is invading and attacking the sovereign land of that country an act of self defense?

How is seizing foreign vessels in the Strait of Hormuz an act of self defense?

How is drone bombing a Saudi Arabian oil plant an act of self defense?

 

[HighPriest]

I think the evidence would indicate that Iran is also interested in regional control - not just self-interest and protection. They're just not as good at it as the US is. A smaller bully is still a bully.

 

[Peterluger]

I think the evidence would indicate that Iran is also interested in regional control - not just self-interest and protection. They're just not as good at it as the US is. A smaller bully is still a bully.

I think no one is denying that Iran has regional ambitions to become the hegemon there (they probably never will be truly successful at this, as Iran is not an Arab country). The problem is, it’s very simplistic thinking when some are saying “dey hate us becuz of our freedomms, and I’m happy soleimani died because he’s our enemy”

 

[Lawpy]

I'm getting confused again so need some clarification. If Soleimani was a known criminal and was killed in Iraq (along with one of the Iraqi militia leaders), how is killing him an act of war?

 

[Peterluger]

Well, they both are/were brutal, intolerant, treat(ed) women as chattel, enemies of the US and our allies, so there is that.

One of them committed genocidal acts against certain ethnic groups and used chemical weapons against said ethnic groups. And made it official policy to actually destroy certain ethnic groups. I mean two wrongs don’t make a right, but there’s just no comparison.

 

[Peterluger]

I'm getting confused again so need some clarification. If Soleimani was a known criminal and was killed in Iraq (along with one of the Iraqi militia leaders), how is killing him an act of war?

He was a general. Whether he was a criminal would’ve been up to the courts to decide. But generally, targeted killings are illegal. You can’t just go around killing people because they do things you don’t like. A looser definition was used when the US was going after *actual* terrorists like Bin Laden, but the problem is, Soleimani was an officer of a sovereign state, and its not like he was actually shooting US marines in the head at the time he was targeted.

 

[Lawpy]

He was a general. Whether he was a criminal would’ve been up to the courts to decide. But generally, targeted killings are illegal. You can’t just go around killing people because they do things you don’t like. A looser definition was used when the US was going after *actual* terrorists like Bin Laden, but the problem is, Soleimani was an officer of a sovereign state, and its not like he was actually shooting US marines in the head at the time he was targeted.

He had extensive criminal and terror history and was responsible for deaths of many Americans

 

[deleted126335]

He was a general. Whether he was a criminal would’ve been up to the courts to decide. But generally, targeted killings are illegal. You can’t just go around killing people because they do things you don’t like. A looser definition was used when the US was going after *actual* terrorists like Bin Laden, but the problem is, Soleimani was an officer of a sovereign state, and its not like he was actually shooting US marines in the head at the time he was targeted.

"Now, some people believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, others believe in the international community -- it's a fiction."
- George Will

 

[Peterluger]

He had extensive criminal and terror history and was responsible for deaths of many Americans

Americans? You mean American soldiers. Be specific. That’s by definition war. Not terror. He was acting on the behalf of a state, to kill soldiers of another state. Your king Trump is arguably a criminal in a much more concrete sense, in that he broke actual written laws.

 

[HighPriest]

dey hate us becuz of our freedomms, and I’m happy soleimani died because he’s our enemy”

Well I think this is true, even though I agree with it being simplistic. Just like saying a tree is green even though you could be much more descriptive if you wanted to be accurate.
I don’t think the average Iranian hates our freedoms any more than I care what the average Iranian is doing, but their government certainly feels that those freedoms are an affront to their theocracy.

 

[Peterluger]

Well I think this is true, even though I agree with it being simplistic. Just like saying a tree is green even though you could be much more descriptive if you wanted to be accurate.
I don’t think the average Iranian hates our freedoms any more than I care what the average Iranian is doing, but their government certainly feels that those freedoms are an affront to their theocracy.

Im done with this. You think that’s why their government is against the US government? Or could it be because of repeated interventionism in the region? Or because their government needs a bogeyman to vilify, so they can consolidate their own position amongst their populace? Or could it be a combination of both?

 

[HighPriest]

Americans? You mean American soldiers. Be specific. That’s by definition war. Not terror. He was acting on the behalf of a state, to kill soldiers of another state. Your king Trump is arguably a criminal in a much more concrete sense, in that he broke actual written laws.

not like he was actually shooting US marines in the head at the time he was targeted.

So, either he was warring on behalf of his country or he wasn’t. You don’t have to be actually shooting someone in the head at the time of your death to be killed as an act of war. Most people aren’t. Sometimes they’re in a firefight and sometimes they’re just hanging out in a bunker talking about being home for the holidays when a bomb eats them up.

IF he was killed as a terrorist, that’s one thing. I think you could make an argument that planning a mob attack on an embassy is an act of terror. (And yeah, no matter for which country you do so).

IF he was killed as a soldier in an act of war, he had initiated his own personal war on behalf of his government well before he was killed for doing so.