# Iraq Unravels



## tomahawk6 (31 Dec 2019)

The US weakness in the region is Iraq which Iran is now playing after Iranian proxies attacked the US embassy. Trump is sending 100 Marines to reinforce it. What we should do is to pull out of Iraq completely unless we are willing to fight Iran- which we aren't.


----------



## Underway (31 Dec 2019)

It seems a bit early to say Iranian proxies.  Not saying you're wrong but I seem to recall all the trouble there started with bad intel (the WMD issue).  Time will tell, though I have no doubt we'll know exactly what happened in a tweet...  :


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> It seems a bit early to say Iranian proxies.  Not saying you're wrong but I seem to recall all the trouble there started with bad intel (the WMD issue).  Time will tell, though I have no doubt we'll know exactly what happened in a tweet...  :



Not too early...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-backed-militia-supporters-converge-on-us-embassy-in-baghdad-shouting-death-to-america/2019/12/31/93f050b2-2bb1-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html



> Militia supporters chanting ‘Death to America’ break into U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad
> Militia supporters breach gates of U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
> Supporters of an Iranian-backed militia breached the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on Dec. 31, demanding U.S. troops and diplomats to leave the country. (Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
> By Mustafa Salim and
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Dec 2019)

Shades of 1979. I certainly hope there is not a repeat of the Tehran hostage taking that lasted 444 days.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> It seems a bit early to say Iranian proxies.  Not saying you're wrong but I seem to recall all the trouble there started with bad intel (the WMD issue).  Time will tell, though I have no doubt we'll know exactly what happened in a tweet...  :


You haven't been following Iraq's geopolitical situation at all over the last 6 months, have you? The massive protests from citizens are against Iranian influence and corruption. President denied the nomination of a new Prime Minister because he was too pro-Iran. Half the militias in Iraq are armed, paid for and controlled by the IRGC. All of that is readily available open source intelligence...


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Dec 2019)

The guy in the White House needs a powerful distraction, and Iran stupidly just gave it to him.


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Dec 2019)

Just make like the Cape Breton birth control method and "pull out".


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just make like the Cape Breton birth control method and "pull out".


Obama tried that. Didn't work and ended up with a kid no one wanted called ISIS.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2019)

I think we can put the tinfoil hats away, this is getting as ridiculous as "Bush did 9/11" conspiracy theories.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jan 2020)

The protestors pulled back when the Marines and Iraqi army arrived.  

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-us-embassy-troops-protests-tear-gas 

An airborne battalion is en route to Kuwait and a brigade of the 82d is now being prepared to deploy. Marines send a message as does sending paratroops.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The protestors pulled back when the Marines and Iraqi army arrived.
> https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-us-embassy-troops-protests-tear-gas


No.  If one _actually reads the article_, even Fox 'News' states they pulled out "in response to an appeal by the Iraqi government... by late afternoon the tents had been taken down and the protesters relocated to the opposite side of the Tigris River."



> Marines send a message as does sending paratroops.


*What message do you believe this sends?*  Serious question  op:


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2020)

Moved all the impeachment stuff to where it belongs, in the Global Politics section under this thread: https://army.ca/forums/threads/129605.975.html.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jan 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No.  If one _actually reads the article_, even Fox 'News' states they pulled out "in response to an appeal by the Iraqi government... by late afternoon the tents had been taken down and the protesters relocated to the opposite side of the Tigris River."
> *What message do you believe this sends?*


:crickets:  Well, you returned online, but chose not to respond.  Not unexpected.



Here's my take on 'messaging'  (yes, I know it's way too long for some).


First, you have to understand who the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are, since they appear to be the backbone of the “protesters.”  The PMF is an Iraqi, state-sponsored umbrella organization composed of several dozen militias; they are popular amongst Iraqis of various persuasions since:  
a) they consist of Shia, Sunni, Yazidi, and even Christian militias; 
b) more importantly, they have fought in nearly every anti-ISIS battle and are generally considered [by Iraqis] to have contributed more than the US (and coalition although most Iraqis focus only on US) to curbing ISIS.

The US is claiming that PMF are subservient to Iran, and I’ve no doubt that _some_  factions are.  The Americans have periodically attacked their bases, occasionally with Israeli UAV support.  Naturally, this pisses off several groups, and anti-US protests have been on the rise.  On 23 Aug (following a strike against PMF logistics sites), a fatwa was issued against US troop presence, including demanding attacks against them.

Throughout Oct and into Nov, Iraqi government security killed several people in keeping protesters away from the Green Zone and the US Embassy. But the other day when the PML moved on the US Embassy, the police apparently turned a blind eye.  Why?

A 27 Dec a FML rocket attack against a US/Iraqi base in Kirkuk killed a US contractor and wounded 4 soldiers.  These attacks usually happen when US anti-Iran rhetoric (or tweets) ramp up;  they tend to be as ineffective as the Kandahar attacks that did little besides close Timmies for an hour or so.  However, the US responded with airstrikes against three targets in Iraq and two in Syria.


If I may quote an online commentator, who goes by the name “Lethality Jane” 





> The PMF "protesters" breached one gate and set a guard shack on fire, but didn't kill or seriously injure anyone. They withdrew en masse the next day.
> 
> *This was a warning*



The protesters came back again today, but not the ‘combat troops’ and more with the intent to let the media and world know that they’re still not happy with the US.  _Again_,  they withdrew on Iraqi orders, not because some additional US troops arrived/are enroute.  

THEREFORE:
I believe that “the message being sent” is that Iraq cooperated with the PMF because they’re fucking pissed that the US shifted the mission to a counter-Iran/PMF strike within Iraqi territory, without having cleared it with the Iraqis. 

I have no doubt that the administration will miss the nuance of the message.

The message being ignored is that this was a US self-inflicted wound.  The President took a break from golfing just long enough to send troops and tweet self-congratulations on his tactical acumen, for dealing with a situation largely of the US’ own creation.

But what are the odds of some trigger-happy troop escalating the situation?  ROEs are inconsequential if the soldier expects a Presidential pardon.

 :2c:

[Slight edit for clarity]


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Jan 2020)

Interesting article from the Atlantic:



> The Embassy Attack Revealed Trump’s Weakness
> 
> By abandoning diplomacy, the president risks war, humiliation, or both—and has put himself at Iran’s mercy. 10:15 AM ET [01 Jan 2020]
> Peter Beinart
> ...



Link


----------



## CBH99 (1 Jan 2020)

Fantastic post Journeyman, thank you.

As someone who tends to miss the details when it comes to Middle Eastern politics, and undoubtedly ignorantly casts it all into the "same old nonsense" bin -- your post really helped fill in some very important history and details on this matter.  Interesting read indeed.


I have no idea how to give milpoints, or if I even can.  But great post!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Jan 2020)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :crickets:  Well, you returned online, but chose not to respond.  Not unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A slight nuance if I may.

The PMF are indeed (now) a formed part of the Iraqi military, and the Hasd Shaaabi make a credible claim to have staved of ISIS at the gates of Baghdad.  Amongst the PMF are Shia Militia Groups, or SMG.  All SMGs are PMF - not all PMF are SMGs.

There is a hard core element of the SMGs that are Iranian backed and directed.  See Badr, Hadi Al-Amri etc.  They are the ones that cause the most concern - and some operate from the same MOD bases that also house Coalition troops. AAH and KTH are particularly nasty.

It is a rather complicated and complex landscape....


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jan 2020)

All I said is that the protesters had pulled back and both the Marines and Iraqi security forces arrived ti releave the embassy. This has been a delicate balance between the Sunni's and the Shia minority which is supported by Iran. Iran would love to takeover Iraq but it would spark a civil war. Iran is suffering under the sanctions and want them to be lifted so attacking the embassy is a new response rather than attacking tankers.

Iran doesn't want to see US troops in Iraq so the President is bringing in troops to both provide troops should they be required to evacuate the embassy staff and to provide a limited response if necessary. Sending in a brigade of the 82d also lets Iraq know that we will stand with them.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jan 2020)

Good posts Journeyman and Retired AF Guy.

The problem for Trump is that he's really just playing to his base with the Iran boogeyman, the "no Benghazi on my watch" and his herky-jerky Middle East policy (or lack thereof)

There's no doubt that Iran is a threat to the stability of the region but just about everything Trump has done is to increase the instability, push away from allies, and threaten with bluster but no real follow-up. Quite frankly, there is not much follow-up available to him short of dropping a nuke on Tehran. The US is pretty much at the extent of sanctions and Iran has some colleagues (if not allies) in Russia, Turkey and China so isn't about to wither away.

Militarily Iran holds a trump (no pun intended) card with it's dominance over Gulf shipping, large land mass and a military which, while not peer level, is big enough and tough enough to require an effort on a par with that of the US's previous wars with Iraq. I doubt that the US (or it's allies) are up to another of those seeing as how the last two efforts turned out in the long run.

Since May of 2019, the US has committed some additional 14,000 military pers (army, navy and air force) to the region. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thousands-us-troops-headed-middle-east/story?id=67504430 (That's before the recent airborne brigade). Every time we see some low cost, low risk efforts by Iran it ends up with a jingoistic knee-jerk reaction from the Trump administration or some inconsequential troop reshuffle which, naturally, has little effect on Iran but assuredly makes it look to the American Trump base, that the US is being tough.

The problem is that none of this either solves the problem nor furthers Trump's stated aim of withdrawing US troops from the region (if that actually should be the aim because it is clear that every time that the US steps back, Russia steps in to quietly fill the void.)

The Middle East is an area that cries out for subtle diplomacy which this administration is entirely incapable of giving. (In fairness, the last administration wasn't the best either but they were certainly better than what is going on now.) My guess is that there won't be any major effort by the US of any real consequence regardless of what Iran does next. An airborne brigade in this region has zero impact beyond a very small local defence capability but will certainly irritate and annoy the Iraqi's rather than give them a feeling of comfort. Iran shows contempt for the US and quite rightfully so. Trump will continue to bluster and claim victory regardless of what is actually happening while the US's real influence in the area slowly bleeds away by a thousand little cuts.

 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Jan 2020)

It seems that the decision had already been made to reduce the US presence at the BEC:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/17/state-department-dramatic-scale-down-presence-iraq-trump-middle-east-pompeo-diplomacy-iran/



> EXCLUSIVE
> State Department Outlines Dramatic Scale-Down of U.S. Presence in Iraq
> Critics say the move will open the door to increased Iranian influence and worsen Iraq’s slide into chaos.
> BY ROBBIE GRAMER | DECEMBER 17, 2019, 4:22 PM
> ...



It seems that message has also been heard by Iraq, Iraqis, Iran, SMGs etc.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2020)

The breakdown in the staff reduction isnt discussed.They could be a reduction of Iraqi's working there or other departments .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jan 2020)

Iraq was always doomed to another war, either external or civil. It was being held together by brute force and terror. Once Saddam dies, it is very likely it would start to unravel, most likely into a civil war. Looking at the history of regime change in Iraq, looting is a feature not a bug. Had the US not invaded, then the US would have eventually withdrawn most of it's military from the region, at which point Saddam would boot the UN inspectors out. France, Russia and China were all vying for access to Iraq's oil fields, all of whom were owed billions for war material, so expect a surge in revenue going into his coffers. Saddam would need to rearm quickly, the fastest way would have been chemical weapons, followed by a restart of his nuclear program, likley enlisting help from Pakistan's Khan and North Korea. The Revolutionary Guard would rearm first, followed by security services and finally the army. By now assuming he is still alive, he would be announcing some form of nuclear capability or intent to do so. It's also likley he would be seeking assistance from Russia for AD systems, etc. Saddam would be quite busy with Obama and Putin, throwing his support to Putin, at the same time Iran would be building it's forces along the western border and interfering in the US Afghanistan efforts even more than it has. Iraq would then point out to KSA and the US intelligence services that he can be a useful counterweight to Iran, who would reluctantly either support or at least not hinder him. It's very possible that Saddam surviving might actually spur a nuclear arms race in the region. Iraq could not afford to face a nuclear armed Iran (or vis versa), without some similar ability to respond and Iraq could not count on any support from his neighbours thanks to his repeated attacks and invasions.
Would someone like Obama have maintained a no fly zone for the Shia's, particularly with Iran becoming more aggressive in Afghanistan? Saddam would also be likely to want to break Shia's leadership, so expect a upswing of oppression there. Saddam would be quite old with his family manoeuvring to take over, while other factions within the Baathist do the same, all-while attempting to survive purges from an increasingly paranoid Saddam.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2020)

Civil war may be the only way to root out the pro-Iranian militias.We fought them during OIF. Its something the US would not want to repeat.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The breakdown in the staff reduction isnt discussed.They could be a reduction of Iraqi's working there or other departments .



In the article....


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> A slight nuance if I may.


_Obviously_,  I follow your posts as the wise but curmudgeonly Jedi that you are.  :bowdown:

Equally obviously, the points I mentioned already exceeded my bandwidth quota (for any discussion in which "Trump" is mentioned), without getting deeper into the weeds.   ;D

...so thank you for the addendum.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Trump will continue to bluster and claim victory regardless of what is actually happening while the US's real influence in the area slowly bleeds away by a thousand little cuts Tweets.


Fixed that typo for you.   


OK, _now_  I'll once again back away from Politics 'discussions' for a while.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Latest USA State Dep't travel advisory for the record ...


> Iraq Travel Advisory
> Travel Advisory
> January 1, 2020
> Iraq - Level 4: Do Not Travel
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Civil war may be the only way to root out the pro-Iranian militias.We fought them during OIF. Its something the US would not want to repeat.



After 16 years of "training" the Iraq armed forces (and 2 trillion dollars spent) it was those militia groups that were largely responsible for defeating ISIS, not the Iraq army.

Now all those well armed and battle hardened milita groups are camped all over Iraq and there isn't anything the Iraq government can do about it, especially not remove them by force.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2020)

Is Canada prepared for an embassy being breached ? What the US did in Iraq shows that you don't necessarily need Marines as you could insert commandoes or even a battalion sized force by helicopter. Staging may take a bit but the key is support of local security forces. If they abandon their posts then all beats are off.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> After 16 years of "training" the Iraq armed forces (and 2 trillion dollars spent) it was those militia groups that were largely responsible for defeating ISIS, not the Iraq army.
> 
> Now all those well armed and battle hardened milita groups are camped all over Iraq and there isn't anything the Iraq government can do about it, especially not remove them by force.



Just part of the ongoing Op ICF that started....a long time ago;  that coin was the best $20USD I spent while part of OIR/IMPACT.

If there was one thing I've witnessed move slower than the CAF fighter procurement project, it was ISF ground forces '_advancing_'.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is Canada prepared for an embassy being breached ? What the US did in Iraq shows that you don't necessarily need Marines as you could insert commandoes or even a battalion sized force by helicopter. Staging may take a bit but the key is support of local security forces. If they abandon their posts then all beats are off.


My guess it's already been planned for, and that plan would not be available in an unclassified domain.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> After 16 years of "training" the Iraq armed forces (and 2 trillion dollars spent) it was those militia groups that were largely responsible for defeating ISIS, not the Iraq army.
> 
> Now all those well armed and battle hardened milita groups are camped all over Iraq and there isn't anything the Iraq government can do about it, especially not remove them by force.



The CTS did most of the heavy lifting in Mosul - and FedPol most of the oppression and wanton destruction...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Soleimani killed?

That is a lit zippo lighter in a pail of gasoline...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-secretary-says-iran-and-its-proxies-may-be-planning-fresh-attacks-on-us-personnel-in-iraq/2020/01/02/53b63f00-2d89-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Holy shit.  Al Muhandis as well?

http://news.trust.org//item/20200103004609-oc5sq/



> Iran's Soleimani and Iraq's Muhandis killed in air strike -militia spokesman
> by Reuters
> Friday, 3 January 2020 01:18 GMT
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Holy crap.  Al Muhandis as well?
> 
> http://news.trust.org//item/20200103004609-oc5sq/




Oh frig. Uh oh...


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2020)

Possibly Army gunships as they have been active over the Embassy ? Fox says it was a rocket attack. Proof that Iran has been involved in Iraq.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/rockets-baghdad-airport-injuries-reported


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh frig. Uh oh...



You know what, may just have hit the fan..


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2020)

Nothing from Trump on Twitter yet. He's still blithering about how the FBI ended up putting so many of his honest friends in jail.



> A lot of very good people were taken down by a small group of Dirty (Filthy) Cops, politicians, government officials, and an investigation that was illegally started & that SPIED on my campaign. The Witch Hunt is sputtering badly, but still going on (Ukraine Hoax!). If this........had happened to a Presidential candidate, or President, who was a Democrat, everybody involved would long ago be in jail for treason (and more), and it would be considered the CRIME OF THE CENTURY, far bigger and more sinister than Watergate!



 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

The open source reports speak of 3 x Katyusha rockets.  As you know doubt know, perhaps from being at the other end of one, they are not at all accurate or precision weapons.

As to this:



> Fox says it was a rocket attack. Proof that Iran has been involved in Iraq.



I do not see any correlation.  Nor do I see any doubt that "Iran has been involved in Iraq".  This is a well-established fact, irrespective of which media outlet reports it....what with it being a fact and all of that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

https://www.ibtimes.com/iranian-quds-force-commander-qasem-soleimani-killed-baghdad-air-strike-airport-closed-2895518

First (but inevitable) mention of "drones".

The most telling quote:



> A source from the special forces community in Iraq tells IBT, "There are indications that the attack was staged as the vehicles that were hit were in motion, the precision that the strike was carried out with could have been the work of a drone if ya know what I mean?"


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2020)

The death of the Quds Force commander inside Iraq is proof enough. Whether a drone or apache required intelligence. Good response to the embassy attack. Now maybe security will return to the Green zone.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The death of the Quds Force commander inside Iraq is proof enough. Whether a drone or apache required intelligence. Good response to the embassy attack. Now maybe security will return to the Green zone.



You're not joking are you? How will this improve security?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The open source reports speak of 3 x Katyusha rockets.  As you know doubt know, perhaps from being at the other end of one, they are not at all accurate or precision weapons.



Reports seem to indicate two separate attacks; First the three Katyusha rockets that hit earlier and caused no casualties and then the "airstrike" that killed General Qassem Soleimani. 

As always in situations like this confusion reigns.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Jan 2020)

T6 I think the opposite will happen.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> https://www.ibtimes.com/iranian-quds-force-commander-qasem-soleimani-killed-baghdad-air-strike-airport-closed-2895518
> 
> First (but inevitable) mention of "drones".
> 
> The most telling quote:



Burning down the house on the way out?


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The death of the Quds Force commander inside Iraq is proof enough. Whether a drone or apache required intelligence. Good response to the embassy attack. Now maybe security will return to the Green zone.



Alternatively, he’ll be replaced by someone very nearly as effective in the role, but with a longer leash and a mandate to do substantially more harm to US interests.

When in the annals of US adventurism has ‘whack a mole’ ever succesfully pacified turbulent Mideast soil?

I strongly expect this will make things worse, and that we’ve got some ugly tit for tat coming.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2020)

The Wikipedia article on the life and times of Qasem Soleimani


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2020)

This is not whack a mole.  The head of the Quds Force is not a mole, he is a whale.  He is the uniformed head of a branch of a foreign military.  Someone has taken out the equivalent of a Combatant Commander.


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is not whack a mole.  The head of the Quds Force is not a mole, he is a whale.  He is the uniformed head of a branch of a foreign military.  Someone has taken out the equivalent of a Combatant Commander.



Yup- I meant more from the standpoint of making individual hostile actors go away versus anything that has a real strategic impact. Killing a combatant commander is definitely a big deal in some ways not at all so from the standpoint of degrading capabilities.

But yes, this would be akin to killing Petraeus or Mattis, or someone of that stature.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2020)

The latest from Reuters:



> U.S. strike killed Iran Quds Force chief Soleimani: U.S. official
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States carried out a strike that killed Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity said on Thursday.
> 
> Reporting by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Eric Beech



Link.

This is coming from an "unnamed" officials and should be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed, but if confirmed - wow.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2020)

Its official:



> Trump orders attack that kills Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, other military officials in Baghdad, Pentagon says
> 
> By Frank Miles | Fox News
> 
> ...



Link

Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jan 2020)

Good riddance. Maybe Iran will start to think twice about constantly destabilizing the Middle East, when its Quds Force Generals start dropping dead from Hellfires. They're a terrorist group, and got a terrorist leader's death, sans burial at sea unless they can retrieve the body.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2020)

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/rockets-fired-at-baghdad-airport-qasim-suleimani-reported-killed-20200103-p53oku.html



> US confirms it assassinated Iranian military chief Qassem Soleimani
> Updated January 3, 2020 — 2.01pmfirst published at 12.26pm
> 
> Baghdad: The Pentagon says US military has killed Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, at direction of US President Donald Trump.
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2020)

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

- Ambassador Kosh


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2020)

The question the Iranians are going to be asking themselves is who divulged the location and timing information? Publicly they blame US/Israel, but they have to worry if there is a leak from within, a pissed off Iraqi Shi militia or someone high up in the Iraqi government fed up with Iranian influence?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jan 2020)

The US has been tracking him for years. Catching him out of Iran and in the open was perfect for no collateral damage. Remember that a US contractor was killed last week in a rocket attack and he was responsible for the deaths of over 600 americans in the Iraq War this was justified.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2020)

Maybe, we never know for sure, hopefully some "source" leaks to the Iranian friendly Iraqi that the information came from inside and then sit back and watch as they eat their own.


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US has been tracking him for years. Catching him out of Iran and in the open was perfect for no collateral damage. Remember that a US contractor was killed last week in a rocket attack and he was responsible for the deaths of over 600 americans in the Iraq War this was justified.



Understood. “Legally justified” doesn’t mean “tactically or strategically sound” though. That’s one of the problems with constantly firing everyone who gives you informed and nuanced advice though...

America can absolutely spank Iran viciously id they choose. But, assuming America wishes to stay short of all out military conflict with entire fleets at risk, which do you suppose can do more new harm to the other’s strategic and economic interests in the asymmetrical game?

We will have to see if this hit - satisfying as it may be - proves to have been ‘worth it’.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US has been tracking him for years. Catching him out of Iran and in the open was perfect for no collateral damage. Remember that a US contractor was killed last week in a rocket attack and he was responsible for the deaths of over 600 americans in the Iraq War this was justified.



Don't get me wrong. I won't be shedding a tear for either Soleimani or al-Muhandis. They definitely had a major role to play in Iran's aggression in the region but to say the attack was justified because of some 600 American deaths is a bit disingenuous when one recalls that the US invaded Iraq in the first place on flimsy evidence, disassembled the Iraqi military and government structure which was the only thing keeping the sectarian strife under check and then completely botched the follow up restructure of Iraq for many years. The result of this US led fiasco was some 4,809 allied deaths (including the 600 that you mention), some 15,000 Iraqi military deaths, some 27,000 insurgent deaths and probably something in the order of several hundred thousand civilian deaths not to mention the untold numbers of seriously maimed people of all natures that still suffer as a result (the actual numbers, especially of civilians, vary wildly depending on source).

As I said I won't shed a tear for those two but I certainly hope the US has done a better analysis of what the downstream consequences of this little object lesson will be. I hope that they have but, regretfully, I think the ultimate go/no-go decision was probably based more on how this will sell with the November voting base.

Despite my criticism here, I wish the US luck because much of what happens next, will effect all of us.

 :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Pentagon info-machine's version ....


> At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
> 
> General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.
> 
> This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

And, next up, via Iranian media ...


> Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has appointed Esmail Qaani as the new head of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force following US assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani.
> 
> "Following the martyrdom of the glorious general Qasem Soleimani, I name Brigadier General Esmail Qaani as the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps," the Leader said in a statement posted on his official website.
> 
> In the statement, the Leader described Gen. Qaani as one of the IRGC's most prominent commanders during Saddam's imposed war on Iran, which lasted eight years starting in 1980 ...


More in link, or in attached PDF in case you don't want to link to an IRN news site.


----------



## observor 69 (3 Jan 2020)

I have no problem with most of the informed analysis in this thread. 
But the one thought that keeps going through my mind is to paraphrase ]Trump.
"If it looks like I am going to lose the Presidency I'll start a war." And as reported in the media this morning:
Earlier this week while on his Mara Largo golf course he told Lindsay Graham he would be doing this strike. As usual, he didn't inform the appropriate Congressional leaders. It was an attack directed by Trump.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> ... "If it looks like I am going to lose the Presidency I'll start a war." ...


Well, if we take POTUS45 at his word, he seems to have believed at one point that this was an approach (more) ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The CTS did most of the heavy lifting in Mosul - and FedPol most of the oppression and wanton destruction...



Very much believe it about the FedPol. I can't imagine being a civilian in that country having to deal with police like that. 

I've only seen the CTS a few times and they were acting as body guards to high ranking officers. Better weapon optics and comms equipment than Canadians. Black styrofoam in their magazine and grenade pouches to make them look high speed for the pictures they were obsessively taking of themselves (and probably lighter?) 
Have a feeling these guys weren't in Mosul. 




			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> The question the Iranians are going to be asking themselves is who divulged the location and timing information? Publicly they blame US/Israel, but they have to worry if there is a leak from within, a pissed off Iraqi Shi militia or someone high up in the Iraqi government fed up with Iranian influence?



I was under the belief that Iran knows the US has middle East fatigue and knows if they want the US out of the area then they should leave the US alone. Up to and including giving the milita groups in the area a moratorium on bothering the US forces because they realize what the US reaction will be. 




			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong. I won't be shedding a tear for either Soleimani or al-Muhandis. They definitely had a major role to play in Iran's aggression in the region but to say the attack was justified because of some 600 American deaths is a bit disingenuous



Couldn't agree more. Some estimates put the civilian death toll over a half million souls.


----------



## jeffb (3 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Very much believe it about the FedPol. I can't imagine being a civilian in that country having to deal with police like that.
> 
> I've only seen the CTS a few times and they were acting as body guards to high ranking officers. Better weapon optics and comms equipment than Canadians. Black styrofoam in their magazine and grenade pouches to make them look high speed for the pictures they were obsessively taking of themselves (and probably lighter?)
> Have a feeling these guys weren't in Mosul.



I can assure you that not only were CTS in Mosul, they did most of the heavy lifting on the ground. Their casualty figures reflect that as well. Won't comment on your experiences with them other than to say that mine were very impressive.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jan 2020)

I'm glad this SOB is dead. And his 2 I/C too.

Admiral Yamamoto was killed by American fighters in WW 2. By the comments I've seen posted here I'm guessing this is an equivalent of that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

I definitely must have been seeing the B team then. That's actually good to hear.

When I read the The Bear Went Over the Mountain something that stood out was the author talking about how Russian recon soldiers were better trained and equipped so were constantly used to get the job done, which reflected in their casualty figures and burn out. Recon guys would be used for conventional fighting as well. 

I wonder if the Iraq CTS share a similar fate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm glad this SOB is dead. And his 2 I/C too.
> 
> Admiral Yamamoto was killed by American fighters in WW 2. By the comments I've seen posted here I'm guessing this is an equivalent of that.



Me too Jim.  I also think this sends a very powerful message to others not to mess with American interests in that region.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was under the belief that Iran knows the US has middle East fatigue and knows if they want the US out of the area then they should leave the US alone. Up to and including giving the milita groups in the area a moratorium on bothering the US forces because they realize what the US reaction will be.



The US will be fatigued with the Middle East when the oil wells run dry, not before.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2020)

If this had happened on Iranian soil I might have given it a second thought....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> If this had happened on Iranian soil I might have given it a second thought....



I don't understand the distinction.  

So it is okay to launch drone strikes on members of the Iraqi military inside Iraq, but it would be wrong to target members of the Iranian military in Iran?


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Admiral Yamamoto was killed by American fighters in WW 2. By the comments I've seen posted here I'm guessing this is an equivalent of that.



I'd say it was the same scale (from the power/influence of the now-deceased) but the results may be different.  US and Japan were formally at war for 2 years by then, while this *may* drag the US and Iran into war.  It's not to the scale of Franz Ferdinand (and we all know how that turned out), but I'd say the situation was closer to that.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The US will be fatigued with the Middle East when the oil wells run dry, not before.



Not first-order interest in oil, as US Shale 1.0 with 2.0 in solid reserve, makes the direct value of M.E. oil less that it was pre-Shale.  That said, much of the rest of the world still depends on M.E. oil, so there is impact to be assessed and influence to be effected in the next chapter of the unfolding M.E. story. 

Not sure it didn’t happen, but I hope the US gave the Iraqi PM a courtesy heads up (minutes/seconds) before the strike actually happened. If not, I can understand why he’d be pissed.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> If this had happened on Iranian soil I might have given it a second thought....



Al Muhandis makes this different.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Al Muhandis makes this different.



So let me get this straight - the head of the IRGC and this guy are/were allies?  And that's why the IRGC was let into Iraq?  

I understand that alliances shift like the sands there, but Iran and Iraq teaming up was something I didn't think was ideologically compatible with the whole Shia/Sunni thing...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight - the head of the IRGC and this guy are/were allies?  And that's why the IRGC was let into Iraq?
> 
> I understand that alliances shift like the sands there, but Iran and Iraq teaming up was something I didn't think was ideologically compatible with the whole Shia/Sunni thing...



There’s a lot we don’t know about this. If it was as you describe above (less that Soleimani was the Quds Commander, a sub-unit of the IRGC, not the IRGC proper), those are questions to ask, but...still, Al Muhandis was an Iraqi Commander.  OTOH, what if he was meeting Soleimani on the Iraqi PM’s direction as an intermediary to work an issue out between two nations interacting diplomatically? It is not apparent what the interaction was going to be. No matter the interaction, Al Muhandis was a highly-ranked Iraqi Commander, so the issue isn’t a clear-cut ‘anyone associated with evil Iranian guy also deserves to die’ situation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> If this had happened on Iranian soil I might have given it a second thought ....


Iran doesn't seem to be making any such distinctions * ...
_*"(IRGC Deputy) Commander Warns US: Either Escape or Order Coffins for Troops Stationed in ME"*_

* - Full text also attached in case you don't want to link to IRN's state news agency web site.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

[quote author=Dimsum]  

I understand that alliances shift like the sands there, but Iran and Iraq teaming up was something I didn't think was ideologically compatible with the whole Shia/Sunni thing...
[/quote]

US fatigue.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight - the head of the IRGC and this guy are/were allies?  And that's why the IRGC was let into Iraq?
> 
> I understand that alliances shift like the sands there, but Iran and Iraq teaming up was something I didn't think was ideologically compatible with the whole Shia/Sunni thing...



So yes, Muhandis and Soleimani were Allies.  Has a lot to do with this:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And, next up, via Iranian media ...More in link, or in attached PDF in case you don't want to link to an IRN news site.


I bet he avoids any high profile trips to Iraq for the time being.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not first-order interest in oil, as US Shale 1.0 with 2.0 in solid reserve, makes the direct value of M.E. oil less that it was pre-Shale.  That said, much of the rest of the world still depends on M.E. oil, so there is impact to be assessed and influence to be effected in the next chapter of the unfolding M.E. story.
> 
> Not sure it didn’t happen, but I hope the US gave the Iraqi PM a courtesy heads up (minutes/seconds) before the strike actually happened. If not, I can understand why he’d be pissed.



Shale is not the panacea it is made out to be.  It's a short-term solution and the United States needs to be ready to set the conditions for future success going forward.

I think this linked article lays out why:

https://www.mei.edu/publications/shale-oil-and-illusion-us-energy-independence

Middle Eastern Oil is still the cheapest game in town.  If anything, US reliance on Shale for Energy independence puts them in bed even more with the Gulf States.

Why?

Because the Gulf States have the ability, through OPEC, to control the price of oil. ARAMCO would be still making money at $15 per barrel, Shale is reliant on prices remaining high IOT be economically feasible.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Shale is not the panacea it is made out to be.  It's a short-term solution and the United States needs to be ready to set the conditions for future success going forward.
> 
> I think this linked article lays out why:
> 
> ...



Interesting piece, and good for critical thinking...however...the author seems to pre-judge that the M.E. is the only significant source of medium and heavy crude to round out the light shale.  

If only there were a source of medium/heavy crude that America could influence that was closer than the M.E. and wasn’t an OPEC member easily influenced by the GCC...

I see that her note of “best estimates” of 5-10 years to Peak for US shale went without a reference...

We’ll see how America’s ‘continuing dependency’ on OPEC oil plays out...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So yes, Muhandis and Soleimani were Allies.  Has a lot to do with this:



Treading tentatively here - recognizing that some wear their t-shirts legitimately.

Aren't there a couple of other overlays for that map?  It refers to Kurds and Arabs.  Aren't the Arabs traditionally seen as the desert wanderers and culturally different from the people of the cities, each of which has its own distinct identity?  And, in addition to the religious, linguistic differences I might expect to find Persian cultural influences in the Shia inclined areas, particularly in Mesopotamia proper, "the land between the two rivers"?

All of which is to say life is complicated over there and has been ever since farmers started defending their flocks and field from starving nomads.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet he avoids any high profile trips to Iraq for the time being.


If he listens to the IRGC Health & Safety Committee, he will  :nod:

Meanwhile, Russia's initial take:


> The Russian Defense Ministry has highlighted the contribution of Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in a US strike at Baghdad airport, to combating the Islamic State (IS terrorist group, outlawed in Russia) in Syria.
> 
> "Under the direct leadership of Qasem Soleimani, armed resistance against international terrorist groups ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, former name of the IS - TASS) and Al-Qaeda (outlawed in Russia) was organized in Syria and Iraq long before the so-called international coalition led by the US. His personal contribution to the fight against ISIL on the territory of Syria is undisputed," the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement published on Friday ...


How do you say "grossly misunderstood man" in Russian?  ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Interesting piece, and good for critical thinking...however...the author seems to pre-judge that the M.E. is the only significant source of medium and heavy crude to round out the light shale.
> 
> If only there were a source of medium/heavy crude that America could influence that was closer than the M.E. and wasn’t an OPEC member easily influenced by the GCC...
> 
> ...



There is another source obviously (It's us) but again, it all comes down to price and profit margins.  Middle Eastern Oil will always have competitive advantage due to significantly lower extraction costs.

The Shale industry is also doing terribly btw.  

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-The-Shale-Boom-Running-On-Fumes.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Here is a link to the November 2018 copy of the Sentinel magazine which is produced by the _Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point_ which has a detailed biography of the late, great General Qassem Solieman.

https://ctc.usma.edu/november-2018/


----------



## BlueFalcon109 (3 Jan 2020)

The assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis was reckless and to be frank, stupid. There are going to be severe long term ramifications for this.


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Here is a link to the November 2018 copy of the Sentinel magazine which is produced by the _Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point_ which has a detailed biography of the late, great General Qassem Solieman.
> 
> https://ctc.usma.edu/november-2018/



Their website is slow as hell right now. I cannot imagine why that would be.

Thanks for the good read.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2020)

BlueFalcon109 said:
			
		

> The assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis was reckless and to be frank, stupid. There are going to be severe long term ramifications for this.



Pretty much classic Trump so far though; he's been impeached, and this will look good in the polls to his base, and bolster his support in the Senate (because they will be more afraid of being kicked to the curb then getting their soldiers killed). Bullying people is easy to do when it's not your kids that will go to the front lines to die.

He's said he would start a war rather then lose the presidency, so no real surprise. He's doing great at handing over the M.E. to Russia and Chinese interests though; pretty impressive to undermine a generation of diplomacy in a few short years. Expect Iraq is super happy that they killed a general of their neighbour with a drone strike in their country.

Not looping in Congress or any NATO allies was a nice touch; kind of a schizophrenic approach to isolationalism.

I don't doubt this guy wasn't exactly a humanitarian, but the US blew through any credibility with the Iraq WMD intelligence fiasco, so hard to believe anything coming out of the Pentagon or Whitehouse about this preventing an imminent attack, especially given the obvious political gains. These guys are like really bad cartoon villains.


----------



## BlueFalcon109 (3 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Pretty much classic Trump so far though; he's been impeached, and this will look good in the polls to his base, and bolster his support in the Senate (because they will be more afraid of being kicked to the curb then getting their soldiers killed). Bullying people is easy to do when it's not your kids that will go to the front lines to die.
> 
> He's said he would start a war rather then lose the presidency, so no real surprise. He's doing great at handing over the M.E. to Russia and Chinese interests though; pretty impressive to undermine a generation of diplomacy in a few short years. Expect Iraq is super happy that they killed a general of their neighbour with a drone strike in their country.
> 
> ...



100% spot on. It's insane how much Trump has single-handedly eroded US soft power and diplomatic prowess on the global stage during his tenure as POTUS. I'm terrified of the prospects of Trump getting a second term.


----------



## TheHead (3 Jan 2020)

These tweets of his aged like milk. There are countless others.  This is a case of projection and hypocrisy like many other documented times.  Attack someone for doing or not doing something and then do a 180 and do it yourself.  It's part of his playbook.  













*Edited to change negative tone*


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jan 2020)

I find it absolutely hilarious that the same people who think POTUS is an incompetent fool with no geopolitical skills or knowledge is now somehow smart enough to know exactly the 3 terrorists to kill that Iran will risk a hot war with the United States.

Absolutely this act was an escalation, but likely a much needed change of a broken record. "Soft power" with Iran hasn't worked in 40 years. They are a massive destabilizing force in the Middle East, and Soleimani has been compared to Bin Laden/Al-Baghdadi for his leadership in exporting terror to other countries to further Iranian influence in the area. We're also not privy to the high level intelligence that would lead the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Director CIA/NSA/DIA to brief POTUS on a direct connection between Soleimani and the rocket attack in Kirkuk, and also a window where they would be able to prosecute the target outside the territory of Iran.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jan 2020)

I remember the siege of the US Embassy and subsequent hostage taking of US diplomats in 1979 in Tehran.

It lasted 444 days and six hostages were evacuated through the Canadian Embassy. Like it or not, I don't think Iran has forgotten that. 

As I have said before, I'm glad these two terrorists were dispatched.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Shale is not the panacea it is made out to be.  It's a short-term solution and the United States needs to be ready to set the conditions for future success going forward.
> 
> I think this linked article lays out why:
> 
> ...



Shale destroys OPEC power to control the price of oil, while our extraction costs are higher, the ME social costs per barrel is higher, if OPEC pushes the price shale production grows quickly. Saudi is burning through it's cash reserves. because it still must pay out something like $45-50 a barrel to maintain it's population, allies, proxies and to buy western loyalty, regardless of the actual price of oil.


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I remember the siege of the US Embassy and subsequent hostage taking of US diplomats in 1979 in Tehran.
> 
> It lasted 444 days and six hostages were evacuated through the Canadian Embassy. Like it or not, I don't think Iran has forgotten that.
> 
> As I have said before, I'm glad these two terrorists were dispatched.



Amen to that :nod:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> US fatigue.



Yup.  I am guessing that Iraq is getting tired of the US - and all the other players - from what they see as interference (notwithstanding that whole ISIS thing, which they believe they defeated....with an element of truth to it other than that whole ISR and fires aspect of things).  

I feel sorry for them as the remnants of the Persian, Ottoman and Arabic empires pick over the bones of her corpse, with the remains of the Russian and American empires placing sidebets, while the Chinese empire counts its Yuans...


----------



## BlueFalcon109 (3 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I find it absolutely hilarious that the same people who think POTUS is an incompetent fool with no geopolitical skills or knowledge is now somehow smart enough to know exactly the 3 terrorists to kill that Iran will risk a hot war with the United States.
> 
> Absolutely this act was an escalation, but likely a much needed change of a broken record. "Soft power" with Iran hasn't worked in 40 years. They are a massive destabilizing force in the Middle East, and Soleimani has been compared to Bin Laden/Al-Baghdadi for his leadership in exporting terror to other countries to further Iranian influence in the area. We're also not privy to the high level intelligence that would lead the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Director CIA/NSA/DIA to brief POTUS on a direct connection between Soleimani and the rocket attack in Kirkuk, and also a window where they would be able to prosecute the target outside the territory of Iran.



Sir, with all due respect, how do you think this is going to be portrayed in the region and on the international stage? The United States just assassinated a high ranking military official of sovereign country "A" during a visit to sovereign country "B" at the behest of country "B"'s internationally recognized government along with the commander of a government-sanctioned paramilitary entity of country "B". The Iraqi government's response to the first US airstrike killing 25 members of said militia was condemnation, literally calling it "a treacherous stab in the back" - how do you think this is going to go over with them? 

I know it's easy to just label anyone who opposes American forces in the Middle East as a "terrorist", but the reality of both that region and diplomacy behind the scenes is much more nuanced than that. 

Also to reiterate the point above: *Soleimani has been compared to Bin Laden/Al-Baghdadi for his leadership in exporting terror to other countries to further Iranian influence in the area* <--- When was the last time Soleimani or the Quds Force flew an airplane into a skyscraper filled with civilians or hunted down nuns and priests in Syria to be raped and beheaded?

I'm a pragmatist who firmly believes in realpolitik and looks at all global developments through a prism of "does this help or hinder Canada's national interests"? You want to blatantly violate international law in order to advance Canada's national interest? Great, you have my support; however, all these actions have done is potentially put at risk the 850 Canadian Forces members deployed in Iraq and I'm still left scratching my head as to how this is good for us?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> As I have said before, I'm glad these two terrorists were dispatched.



So, both are members of the apparatus of legitimate states.  While we may chose to label them as "terrorists", that is oversimplifying the situation by a long shot.  Not everyone who competes, contests, confronts or even combats us is a terrorist.  An adversary?  Absolutely.  A "terrorist"?  Not necessarily.  It is however conceivable that we are on the cusp of above the threshold state on state conflict

Terrorist is, after all, a label - one that has in fact been applied to CENTCOM and its Commander:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-rouhani/iran-designates-as-terrorists-all-us-troops-in-middle-east-idUSKCN1S61GB



> Iran designates as terrorists all U.S. troops in Middle East
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signed a bill into law on Tuesday declaring all U.S. forces in the Middle East terrorists and calling the U.S. government a sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> ...




To be clear, I am not / not suggesting that US forces are "terrorist forces".  I am questioning the value of the label, the ease with which we through it around, and the confusion that may cause.  State on state conflict doesn't suddenly becoming easier by calling it a Counter Terrorism operation.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2020)

I recall Giap remarks "Better 100 years of French , US sh*t than 1,000 years of China" Iraq knows the US will eventually leave, but they know that the Iranians will not, unless forced out.


----------



## kkwd (3 Jan 2020)

Here is the official Canadian Government take on Quds. It is listed under National Security - Counter Terrorism - Listed Terrorist Entities - Currently listed entities 

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx



> Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force
> 
> Also known as
> Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami (Pasdaran), Sepah-e Qods, Qods/Quds, al Quds, al Quds Force, Qods/Quds Force, Qods Corps, Jerusalem Corps, Jerusalem Force and Qods Force.
> ...



The US take on it is here. 
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp644.aspx


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To be clear, I am not / not suggesting that US forces are "terrorist forces".  I am questioning the value of the label, the ease with which we through it around, and the confusion that may cause.  State on state conflict doesn't suddenly becoming easier by calling it a Counter Terrorism operation.....



_Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it._

Not buying the moral relativism argument...nor should there be any tolerance for what the mullahs of Iran have inflicted on the ME to further their own ends. Sometimes you have to choose a side.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

You completely missed my point.

We need to be prepared for state on state war, not counter terrorist operations.

Facile labeling puts that at risk


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jan 2020)

Iran's Quds Force/IRG is designated as a terrorist organization.

https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran's Quds Force/IRG is designated as a terrorist organization.
> 
> https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/



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.


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You completely missed my point.
> 
> 
> _You were the one that cited a Reuters article about Iran designating CENTCOM and the US as terrorists = moral relativism
> ...


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Without a doubt there will be more dead Americans as a direct result.



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.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2020)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Here is the official Canadian Government take on Quds. It is listed under National Security - Counter Terrorism - Listed Terrorist Entities - Currently listed entities
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We need to be prepared for state on state war, not counter terrorist operations.



Wait. What? Us?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jan 2020)

Quds Force introduced the EFP or explosively formed penetrator.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/13/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-500-us-service-memb/


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jan 2020)

>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.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jan 2020)

>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.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I find it absolutely hilarious that the same people who think POTUS is an incompetent fool with no geopolitical skills or knowledge is now somehow smart enough to know exactly the 3 terrorists to kill that Iran will risk a hot war with the United States.
> 
> Absolutely this act was an escalation, but likely a much needed change of a broken record. "Soft power" with Iran hasn't worked in 40 years. They are a massive destabilizing force in the Middle East, and Soleimani has been compared to Bin Laden/Al-Baghdadi for his leadership in exporting terror to other countries to further Iranian influence in the area. We're also not privy to the high level intelligence that would lead the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Director CIA/NSA/DIA to brief POTUS on a direct connection between Soleimani and the rocket attack in Kirkuk, and also a window where they would be able to prosecute the target outside the territory of Iran.



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 (3 Jan 2020)

"that he can't fathom Iran hitting back."

Iran has been "hitting back" since 1979.

As Humphrey B says above   *There is a time for diplomacy and a time to start swinging.*


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> "that he can't fathom Iran hitting back."
> 
> Iran has been "hitting back" since 1979.
> 
> As Humphrey B says above   *There is a time for diplomacy and a time to start swinging.*



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.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 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.



And your crystal ball tells you this how?  Maybe he was found to be a destabilizing force and thus was stabilized. 

Or maybe not.....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard 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. *Agreed*
> 
> ...


----------



## BlueFalcon109 (3 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse 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.....



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


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Quds Force introduced the EFP or explosively formed penetrator.
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/13/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-500-us-service-memb/



A force that developed and deployed a weapon designed to kill it's enemies?  Shocking.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

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.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Quds Force introduced the EFP or explosively formed penetrator.
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/13/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-500-us-service-memb/



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.


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Quds Force introduced the EFP or explosively formed penetrator.
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/13/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-500-us-service-memb/
> 
> ...



From the NY Times:

Iranian General Traveled With Impunity, Until U.S. Drones Found Him - A force that developed and deployed a weapon designed to _kill it's enemies?  Shocking
_


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Guessing the 82nd deploying is more symbolic (again), expident and for people control.



...or they were at high readiness at the time?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2020)

BlueFalcon109 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



Like they could admit that maybe they green-lighted this.
Not saying they did but no one here could be 100 % sure they didn't.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete 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.



I also do not think about any of these issues in terms of "good" and "bad".  This is just Realpolitik.  

One thing that amazes me is how utterly irrelevant Europe has become in Global Affairs.  Macron and Boris are whinging because Trump didn't consult with them  :rofl:

Europe in a little under a decade has basically become a bunch of declining middle powers, only they don't realize it yet but everyone else does.  The United States, China, Russia, India, Turkey, KSA, Iran, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, etc. Are the new countries that matter going forward in to the 21st Century.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...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.



This.  In a manner that appears not at all well considered.


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse 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.....



Crystal ball? No. I read. Sometimes even from sources that know their stuff. Hell, we even have a few of those here.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Like they could admit that maybe they green-lighted this.
> Not saying they did but no one here could be 100 % sure they didn't.



Iraq under Saddam was primarily a Sunni regime, with a majority Shia population. De-Baathification of the Iraqi political and civil institutions also resulted in power shifting primarily to the Shia majority. They now hold the bulk of the political power in Iraq. Iran is Shia. There’s a reason Iraq is politically aligning with Iran, and referring to them as a ‘friendly country’. If you think it likely or even plausible that Iraqi decision makers green-lighted this hit, I would suggest further study is warranted on your part.

Because it seems to be getting lost here: we can simultaneous be happy at the isolated fact that a bad person is dead, while also being very concerned about the strategic implications of how he got that way.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Because it seems to be getting lost here: we can simultaneous be happy at the isolated fact that a bad person is dead, while also being very concerned about the strategic implications of how he got that way.



Exactly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2020)

I'm very concerned.....I'm just having a laugh reading, yes I can read no matter how condensing you wish to be, how so many on here seem to think they know who loves who, and whom is selling out whom.

I have no idea how this plays out and neither do you.....


----------



## kkwd (3 Jan 2020)

More? 

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1213236218269487106?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jan 2020)

Yes, more. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/airstrike-against-iran-backed-militia-kills-5-official-1.4751325


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...or they were at high readiness at the time?



Possible!

Seems like they were high readiness 40 years ago too. 



> The 82nd -- ready 'in hours' if needed in Iran
> April 9, 1980
> https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1980/0409/040945.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

More players want to play (via Lebanese media) ...


> Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah Friday called on “resistance fighters” across the world to take revenge for the U.S. killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani. He vowed that Hezbollah would “continue on Gen. Soleimani’s path” and “raise his flag in all the battlefields.” Soleimani took control of Iran’s Al-Quds Force, the overseas branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in 1998, and used his position to strengthen Iran-backed Shiite groups across the region, including Hezbollah, as part of what Iran and its allies call the “Axis of Resistance.” ...


More @ link


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Thus wakens the ummah.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Thus wakens the ummah.



From what I'm reading it surely won't be awakening in the second largest Iranian populated city in NA.
Lots of anxiety of course, but for the most part celebration in Toronto.


----------



## jeffb (3 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Possible!
> 
> Seems like they were high readiness 40 years ago too.



They are always high-readiness. The 82nd maintains a BCT at high readiness at all times. It's also helpful that they forces they need right now in the Middle East right now are light infantry to help augment the facility security forces. The 82nd is not designed to be the front line in a shooting war against Iran. Posturing them forward puts enough troops in the area to safeguard infrastructure, this is not an offensive move.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jan 2020)

>When you start throwing punches, you’d better have a plan to end the fight.

Maybe killing generals is the plan.

If the US continues to respect the spirit of Executive Order 12333 (which I think is the one proscribing assassination) with respect to everyone except those involved directly in the "shadow" wars, and maintains its undoubted commitment to minimizing consequences to non-combatants, and declines to respond to provocations by killing minions (the rank and file and non-general officers who usually bear the brunt of military operations), then that leaves...the generals.

There may be some fanatics happy to step into their predecessor's shoes and suffer the same fate, but I suppose most want to go on enjoying their Johnny Walker and procured women.

How many generals get whacked before the remainder tell the political leaders that they don't want to play the game anymore, and hint at regime change if the politicians refuse?  I'd guess fewer than 5, especially if  one not ordinarily involved with murky operations gets mistakenly hit (bad int) and the rest decide they don't like the risk.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jan 2020)

Some insight to how it all unfolded:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-trump-decided-to-kill-a-top-iranian-general/2020/01/03/77ce3cc4-2e62-11ea-bcd4-24597950008f_story.html



> National Security
> How Trump decided to kill a top Iranian general
> (The Washington Post)
> By
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2020)

The problem for Iran is that, while yes they have a lot of ways to hurt the US, they to are exceedingly vulnerable and have a population that has little interest in fights outside their country. The Regime faces a fragile home front. Trumps greatest strength and weakness is that no one is sure what he will do next, and both his allies and enemies are surprised by moves outside of their expectations. So retaliate to hard and likely suffer losing more high ranking officials or a military base in Iran, or worse a oil refinery. Not to mention the palace intrigue this creates within Iran. With a strong possibility that Trump will get re-elected, they may need to limit their actions for a number of years.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> From what I'm reading it surely won't be awakening in the second largest Iranian populated city in NA.
> Lots of anxiety of course, but for the most part celebration in Toronto.



http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/iranian-canadians-dance-cheer-and-celebrate-death-of-top-general-in-iran/ar-BBYAAg6?ocid=ientp

Iranian-Canadians dance, cheer and celebrate death of top general in Iran

TORONTO - Several dozen Iranian-Canadians danced and cheered in Toronto on Friday as they celebrated the death of a top general in their home country.

<snip>

But for those who showed up to dance in a square in north Toronto Friday afternoon, Soleimani's death marked what they hoped would be a re-birth for Iran. Chants of "regime change in Iran by the people of Iran" and "we support uprising in Iran" rang out at the rally.

"We are in a great world now after Soleimani's elimination," said Hamid Gharajeh, a spokesman for the Iran Democratic Association of Canada. "I feel wonderful because we really think this is long overdue."

Gharajeh left Iran in 1977 to go to university in the U.S., then moved to Canada about 10 years later. He has never gone home, but still has family in Iran and hopes to return one day.

"My father and mother passed away in Iran, but I've never been to their graves," he said. "The dream is going back to a free Iran."

Others taking part in the Toronto rally said they hope Soleimani's death will be the catalyst for regime change.

"We want peace in the region, not terrorism," said Sara Fallah, the director of the International Coalition of Women Against Fundamentalism.

"Anyone who cares about human rights should be against terrorism and celebrating the death of Soleimani."

Fallah said she left Iran when she was young to come to school in Canada. She has never returned.

Behza Matin said he danced when he first heard the news of the general's death.

"I was so happy to see this man killed," Matin said. ". . . I have to tell you, I had the greatest sleep last night."

The scene contrasted with the reaction in the Iranian capital of Tehran where thousands took to the streets after Friday Muslim prayers to condemn the killing, waving posters of Soleimani and chanting "Death to deceitful America."


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2020)

From the article above:
“The ball is in the Iranian court,” Milley said. “It is their choice what the next steps are.”

Why start a fight and then immediately cede the initiative?


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jan 2020)

18 Abn Corps has a Canadian BG bill Fletcher assigned.

https://home.army.mil/bragg/index.php/about/leadership


----------



## Weinie (4 Jan 2020)

He is an outstanding officer. Was awarded the Star of Military Valour as a Major in Afghanistan


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2020)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/iranian-canadians-dance-cheer-and-celebrate-death-of-top-general-in-iran/ar-BBYAAg6?ocid=ientp
> 
> Iranian-Canadians dance, cheer and celebrate death of top general in Iran ...


It's not the Iranians dancing & hoping for regime change we have to worry about - this from this past summer:  _*"Hezbollah operative collected information on Toronto’s Pearson airport"*_



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> The problem for Iran is that, while yes they have a lot of ways to hurt the US and Israel ...


That bit in yellow could also lead to the U.S. being sucked in, too, to support an ally.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jan 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> He is an outstanding officer. Was awarded the Star of Military Valour as a Major in Afghanistan



I fully agree. He was Anti Armour Platoon Commander in 2 VP. Awesome dude.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Why start a fight and then immediately cede the initiative?



I don't see any initiative being ceded, just a wait to see what their reaction is.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It's not the Iranians dancing & hoping for regime change we have to worry about



I'm not worried about them.

It is, however, another indication of how the general Iranian population likely feel.

How fragile is the Iranian government's position? How close are the population to an all-out uprising?

(Probably nowhere near as close as I'd like them to be.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2020)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How fragile is the Iranian government's position? How close are the population to an all-out uprising?
> 
> (Probably nowhere near as close as I'd like them to be.)


Me, too, hence the bit of worry in spite of knowing one or two very bad folks are no more.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jan 2020)

The Iraqi's decide today whether to tell the US to leave which will make the US left happy and probably Iran. This would give them a direct land route to Syria.  

Soleimani's legacy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/soleimanis-legacy-the-gruesome-advanced-ieds-that-haunted-us-troops-in-iraq/ar-BBYAzkO?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## jeffb (4 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 18 Abn Corps has a Canadian BG bill Fletcher assigned.
> 
> https://home.army.mil/bragg/index.php/about/leadership



It's a standing position. The current CCA once occupied that post.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jan 2020)

The deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State doesn't have the same quality intelligence President Trump has access too. 




> WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration draws up war plans against Iran over what it says are threats to American troops and interests, a senior British military official told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that he saw no increased risk from Iran or allied militias in Iraq or Syria.
> 
> A few hours later, the United States Central Command issued an unusual rebuke: The remarks from the British official — Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, who is also the deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State — run “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region.”
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/world/middleeast/trump-iran-threats.amp.html


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State doesn't have the same quality intelligence President Trump has access too.



So either the intel exists and wasn't shared appropriately, or it doesn't exist.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2020)

Or the same set of data is perceived differently.


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2020)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or the same set of data is perceived differently.



Potentially, though I suspect at that level they’re likely getting mostly finished analytical product rather than raw stuff.

It’s definitely possible that there was security intelligence that, because of its nature, was not shared with the military or with the on the ground commanders. I’m not qualified to evaluate the likelihood or wisdom of that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Iraqi's decide today whether to tell the US to leave which will make the US left happy and probably Iran. This would give them a direct land route to Syria.
> 
> Soleimani's legacy.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/soleimanis-legacy-the-gruesome-advanced-ieds-that-haunted-us-troops-in-iraq/ar-BBYAzkO?ocid=spartanntp



Last time the US left, the Shias almost lost the country to ISIS, they may want to punish the US a bit, but not take that risk, plus there are a lot of factions there that don't like or trust the Iranians either.


----------



## Weinie (4 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Potentially, though I suspect at that level they’re likely getting mostly finished analytical product rather than raw stuff.
> 
> It’s definitely possible that there was security intelligence that, because of its nature, was not shared with the military or with the on the ground commanders. I’m not qualified to evaluate the likelihood or wisdom of that.



It is also possible that it was US Eyes only intel. We run into this all the time in Joint HQ's and where we have exchange pos'ns


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2020)

The latest, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act....


> NATO has suspended training of Iraqi forces to ensure the safety of several hundred mission members amid fears for regional stability after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad killed a top Iranian general, an alliance spokesman said on Saturday.
> 
> “The safety of our personnel in Iraq is paramount,” acting NATO spokesman Dylan White said in a statement. “We continue to take all precautions necessary. NATO’s mission is continuing, but training activities are temporarily suspended.”
> 
> ...


More on the mission itself in another thread here.


----------



## FJAG (4 Jan 2020)

Interlude:







https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10163110227650790&set=gm.3054890654543998&type=3&theater&ifg=1

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2020)

Duffel blog responds

https://www.duffelblog.com/2020/01/martyrdom-tourism/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Duffel%20Blog&utm_content=Iranian%20tourist%20killed%20by%20American%20strike%20in%20Baghdad&fbclid=IwAR1JftH89xDZvXirJpxQHpifQoWug_08kyyz0IhfsEAuRYxCsxLEIWLl3Xo


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interlude:
> 
> ;D



Everyone on milnet.ca already has!


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2020)

‘Iran will be hit very fast and very hard’: Trump says US ‘targeting’ 52 sites if Tehran retaliates to Soleimani killing



			
				 The Independent said:
			
		

> ]‘Iran will be hit very fast and very hard’: Trump says US ‘targeting’ 52 sites if Tehran retaliates to Soleimani killing
> ‘Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader,’ says US president
> 
> President Donald Trump has announced that the US has identified 52 Iranian targets that will be struck if Tehran launches an attack in retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
> ...



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-news-war-trump-twitter-war-ww3-52-targets-latest-news-a9270796.html

US has raised. Time to see if Iran will call or fold. It's an uncharacteristic use of symbolism by the US to tie the number of targets to the number of hostages Iran took back in the day- interesting play.

I hope, I badly hope, that Iran blinks at least enough that the US can ignore the inevitable minor stings that Iran probably cannot fully control. There's gonna be a blend of blowback from Iran as well as from Iraqi players on this. What I'm afraid of is Iran saying 'bring it on', and pushing the escalation up an order of magnitude. America seems determined in this round of exchanges to deliver reprisals an order of magnitude greater than the Iranian attacks provoking them. I hope we don't have to see Trump tested on his lines in the sand and what they mean...

I'm very curious about the explicit mention of targets that are significant to Iran's 'culture'. That's an odd choice of wording, and probably quite deliberate give the thought that has gone in to other parts of this threat. It's concerning.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (4 Jan 2020)

I hope this is just posturing, especially given Trump's penchant for hyperbole....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jan 2020)

jeffb said:
			
		

> They are always high-readiness. The 82nd maintains a BCT at high readiness at all times. It's also helpful that they forces they need right now in the Middle East right now are light infantry to help augment the facility security forces. The 82nd is not designed to be the front line in a shooting war against Iran. Posturing them forward puts enough troops in the area to safeguard infrastructure, this is not an offensive move.



They're at ASAB (or were)...https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/02/emergency-army-deployment-first-new-paratrooper-response-force.html

_The 82nd is required to keep one battalion of the ready brigade on alert to deploy within 18 hours after notification._

There's a few other stories linked on that webpage as well...rocket attacks in a few places, Marines heading towards the area....


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2020)

Deliberately destroying cultural centres is a war crime.


----------



## FJAG (4 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Deliberately destroying cultural centres is a war crime.



I took several Law of Armed Conflict courses and workshops with the US Army's JAG School in Virginia. They do know the LOAC including the various conventions on the protection of cultural objects and have a very rigorous targeting process including a staff check by operational legal advisors. 

I have no doubts that the legal staff check on the actual targets is much more rigorous than those on Trump's tweets.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2020)

In fairness to Trump, he didn't clearly threaten to attack cultural targets, but rather to attack targets that, among other things, are important to the Iranian culture. With the vagueness of that sentence, that could mean a lot of different things. I was pointing out the ambiguity of the wording more than anything. While i have concerns, they're somewhat tempered by knowing what FJAG said to be true. I trust that American targeting and strike protocols would not allow the carrying out of manifestly unlawful orders. Even if that were his specific intent, it would not be the first time the US military senior leadership has had to make sure it's understood by the President what is and isn't legal, and that there are certain lines they cannot and will not cross.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2020)

Hopefully the targets focus first on high value military and IRGC personal, along with some military assets. A target list that spares the general population and focuses on the regime may help create a feeling from within that the Regime is getting what it deserves.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

According to Pence, Qassem Soleimani played a role in helping the 9/11 hijackers travel to Afghanistan.

Even Fox News isn't buying that.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pences-office-media-9-11-terrorists-soleimani

 :cheers:


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jan 2020)

FJAG, 

I assume under LOAC "cultural significant" but also militarily important targets can be one and the same? For example, if Iran bombed the hell out of West Point or the Pentagon, the cultural impact would be felt, however it would be fair game being a military establishment and all?

Maybe the 52 targets are not just ammo depots and barracks, but HQs, trg establishments, etc. That have significance to Iranian culture?


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2020)

CP24 reports on demonstrations at the US consulate in Toronto,
https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1868582


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> According to Pence, Qassem Soleimani played a role in helping the 9/11 hijackers travel to Afghanistan.
> 
> Even Fox News isn't buying that.
> 
> ...



Apparently Iran helped AQ move people, but then took their families hostage to ensure good behaviour or favours. Iran has a history of playing every side at once.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> FJAG,
> 
> I assume under LOAC "cultural significant" but also militarily important targets can be one and the same? For example, if Iran bombed the hell out of West Point or the Pentagon, the cultural impact would be felt, however it would be fair game being a military establishment and all?
> 
> Maybe the 52 targets are not just ammo depots and barracks, but HQs, trg establishments, etc. That have significance to Iranian culture?



Sorry but I can't help you here as I have no idea what Trump really meant when he used those words. Let's face it, he doesn't always use the best words. What it is, however, is a poor choice of words because they can be interpreted just about any way that his base or his critics want. 

That said, I have yet to see a "culturally significant" ammo dump. To be serious though, the law runs both ways. While an attacking force is prohibited/restrained from attacking such targets, the local/occupying forces are also prohibited from using them for a military purpose. Like the US, Iran has ratified the 1954 Hague Convention. The US filed declarations and reservations. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#STATE_PARTIES

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> CP24 reports on demonstrations at the US consulate in Toronto,
> https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1868582



I saw the samething on TV but it now seems to be clash between pro-IRGC supporters and those who are opposed.

Per the US target list I would bet that they might be IRGC bases both land and sea among them. Iraq wont be stable until the militias are disbanded.


----------



## Baz (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I trust that American targeting and strike protocols would not allow the carrying out of manifestly unlawful orders.



I was a staff targetting officer (not a targeteer) at NATO SHAPE J2 ISTAR.  Both my NATO basic targeting course, which included LOAC, at O-Gau, and my collateral damage course at Molesworth were taught by Americans.  Targeteers understand LOAC and it is robustly implemented in the process.

Targets are nominated up based on Commander's intent.  I doubt the White House has circumvented that process by nominating down.

I think that is probably a poor phrasing of the intent he's provided.  I hope he has not provided an intent that is against the LOAC and is accepting the consequences, because he can do that, but he will have been briefed he is personally responsible.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2020)

Meanwhile, the U.S. Selective Service site has been getting swamped ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2020)

We haven't had the draft since the end of Vietnam. I actually enlisted in 1972 which was the start of the all volunteer Army. So the scare mongers are doing a disservice to our young people. We fought Desert Storm without having to draft. Under current guidelines many of these kids today wouldn't be able to get in due to being overweight so those guidelines would have to be relaxed.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We haven't had the draft since the end of Vietnam. I actually enlisted in 1972 which was the start of the all volunteer Army. So the scare mongers are doing a disservice to our young people. We fought Desert Storm without having to draft. Under current guidelines many of these kids today wouldn't be able to get in due to being overweight so those guidelines would have to be relaxed.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I saw the samething on TV but it now seems to be clash between pro-IRGC supporters and those who are opposed.



Saw this on the Toronto news,



> Pro-Iranian terrorist demonstrators build shrine for Qasem Soleimani in Toronto
> https://www.thepostmillennial.com/pro-iranian-terrorist-demonstrators-build-shrine-in-downtown-toronto/
> 
> Pro-Iranian terrorist demonstrators build shrines for Qasem Soleimani in downtown Toronto
> https://themediatimes.com/pro-iranian-terrorist-demonstrators-build-shrines-for-qasem-soleimani-in-downtown-toronto/


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2020)

Next up - highlights mine ...


> The Iraqi parliament passed a resolution Sunday calling on the government to expel U.S. troops from the country in response to the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and the leader of an Iraqi militia on its soil.
> 
> Why it matters: The legal basis for the U.S. presence in Iraq is that it comes at Iraq's invitation. This vote does not formally revoke that invitation, but is a step along that path. A U.S. exit from Iraq could ultimately be one of the most consequential results of Soleimani's killing, because it would significantly hamper the fight against ISIS and achieve a major Iranian objective.
> 
> ...



More of note ...

_*"Iran will hit US ‘military sites' in response to assassination of Lt. Gen. Soleimani"*_ (IRN state media)
_*"A senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps warned that Iran has spotted 35 US targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv for possible attacks in response to the Friday assassination of IRGC Qods Force Commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani ..."*_ (IRN state media)
_*"Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araqchi says “hostile” remarks made by Donald Trump, the president of the United States, clearly amount to war crime according to international law ..."*_ (IRN state media)
_*"Iranians will chant “Death to America” as long as Washington continues its hostile policies, but the slogan is directed at President Donald Trump and U.S. leaders, not the American nation, Iran’s supreme leader said on Friday ..."*_ (Reuters)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Saw this on the Toronto news,



Meh....people build "shrines" when a scumbag drug dealer gets taken out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Meh....people build "shrines" when a scumbag drug dealer gets taken out.



Jésus Malverde!  What a guy!


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next up
> ... What they're saying: Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said Iraq "cannot accept" a "political assassination" on its soil. He called the attack a grave violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
> 
> Mahdi also revealed that Soleimani was in Baghdad at the time of his killing to meet with him and relay Iran's response to a Saudi request for dialogue.
> ...



Both points quite valid and leads one to question how much consultation from US to IRQ occurred prior to the US executing the kill chain.  Let’s accept what PM Mahdi said is true for a moment and appreciate the impact of the US action on intra-Regional effort to work the Yemeni situation.

Regards
G2G


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

Maclean's weighs in: Critical of Obama, backhandedly supportive of Trump and pondering whether we're ready for what comes next.



> The U.S. was justified in killing Soleimani—but is it ready for what comes next?
> 
> Terry Glavin:
> 
> ...



See rest here.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-u-s-was-justified-in-killing-soleimani-but-is-it-ready-for-what-comes-next/

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iraq wont be stable until the militias are disbanded.



That’s a hopelessly naive assertion. Iraq has nothing even close to a stable political power structure nor civil institutions. In many areas the militias - essentially politically decentralized militaries who allegiances are local/regional, not national - are the only particularly effective armed force the government has, *so long as* the central government can retain loyalty. The die was cast on this in 2003 when Iraq’s Army was disbanded wholesale.

If, hypothetically, Iraq could enjoy a generation of reasonable political stability, armed force could hopefully be gradually consolidated under a central democratic (or quasi-democratic) government. Iraq can never achieve the greatest possible stability so long as armed force is decentralized in militias, true; but that will be putting polish on, not hammering out the dents. There are many, many steps to achieve before that.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Both points quite valid and leads one to question how much consultation from US to IRQ occurred prior to the US executing the kill chain.  Let’s accept what PM Mahdi said is true for a moment and appreciate the impact of the US action on intra-Regional effort to work the Yemeni situation.



In any case, Trump appears to have effectively handed the greatest influence in Iraq to Iran. If I’m the course of doing so he also managed to inadvertently frig up efforts to simmer down another regional conflict, that is... less than ideal.

With that said I would be surprised if Soleimani had been in town as part of a sort of diplomatic interchange with Saudi Arabia without US intelligence knowing or at least strongly suspecting that fact.

What a goddamned mess.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2020)

The Iraqi motion is non-binding.  Of course the Iranians, etc will say that they are going to retaliate but privately I am certain the discussions are far different.

Iran is in a pretty precarious position with regard to Israel, KSA and Turkey with America playing the role of referee/kingmaker.  

Israel in particular is very happy with this turn of events.


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Iraqi motion is of course non-binding.  Of course the Iranians, etc will say that they are going to retaliate but privately I am certain the discussions are far different.
> 
> Iran is in a pretty precarious position with regard to Israel, KSA and Turkey with America playing the role of referee/kingmaker.
> 
> Israel in particular is very happy with this turn of events.



It is, yes- though recommended by Iraq's caretaker PM, and it still gives a pretty decent sense of sentiment within the political structure. With a 'win' against ISIS, the assertion is being made that the primary reason for foreign presence is ended.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iraqi-parliament-calls-expulsion-foreign-troops-200105150709628.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Iraqi motion is of course non-binding.  Of course the Iranians, etc will say that they are going to retaliate but privately I am certain the discussions are far different.
> 
> Iran is in a pretty precarious position with regard to Israel, KSA and Turkey with America playing the role of referee/kingmaker.
> 
> Israel in particular is very happy with this turn of events.



It is hard to say who is happy about this. Probably nobody, because of the uncertainty it has created.

While I am nearly certain that few tears are being shed over the untimely passing of Mr Soleimani in most mid-east capital cities, it does make me wonder if this fundamentally fully cleaves the Sunni/Shia divide (especially in Iraq), setting the scene for a monster Islamic War, with the US caught firmly in the middle.

(There I go, becoming an internet mid-east expert....)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2020)

No, you need to be insultive and state that others need to read more before you become a IMEE. rly:


----------



## YZT580 (5 Jan 2020)

Influence was handed over when Obama pulled the troops out prematurely, allowing Iran to move in.  Trump inherited the whole mess.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, you need to be insultive and state that others need to read more before you become a IMEE. rly:



I am the first guy that needs to read more....


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, you need to be insultive and state that others need to read more before you become a IMEE. rly:



The passive-aggressive crap doesn't suit you, Bruce. I ignored it a couple days ago at the top of page 6, I'm going to call you on it now.

You came out of nowhere and replied to one of my posts with "And your crystal ball tells you this how?". That unnecessarily rude reply was back on page 5 if you care to refer. To that, I replied "Crystal ball? No. I read. Sometimes even from sources that know their stuff." I then suggested you study more on this in response to your suggestion that perhaps Iraqi decision makers "green lighted this hit". I stand by that- you made a suggestion that facts don't seem to back, borne out by responses over the last couple days, Being insulted by something doesn't make it an insult. More to the point, I didn't just fire back something snippy, I gave some facts and reasoning for my opinion. I'm no expert, I don't profess to be one- that's a term you have used, not me. What I don't see you doing at all is linking your opinions back to any external reporting, sourcing, or analysis. I don't see you giving any context, any 'why', nothing.

Now we can shelve this and carry on as adults, or you can remain offended over a difference in opinion and a mild rebuke over a weak claim, and continue to take poorly veiled shots at me. For my part I'm happy to look at any points of interest, analysis, or context you want to share on this subject, the same as I am anyone else's posts where there's actual content. Trolling me brings nothing to the thread.

Now that I've said my bit, I'm done with this tangent out of respect to the admins who get stuck cleaning this crap up.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2020)

Some one making a living as a Middle East Expert

David is Non-Resident Fellow at the School of Iranian Studies, St Andrews, and author of War In 140 Characters: How Social Media Is Reshaping Conflict In The Twenty-First Century.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/wake-death-qassim-soleimani-iran-back-foot/


In the wake of the death of Qassim Soleimani, Iran is on the back foot
DAVID PATRIKARAKOS



> It was the delay that was strange. After a US drone strike killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qassim Soleimani in the early hours of Friday morning, Iran and its various Iraqi proxies went into an expected period of mourning – except it wasn’t quite what it should have been.
> 
> Just hours after the strike the official Twitter feed for the Popular Mobilisation Front (PMF) – an umbrella of Iranian-backed militias in Iraq – tweeted out a simple message.
> 
> ...



Anybody know anything about the ranks of the "collateral damage"?  Drivers, staffers or "allies"?


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Some one making a living as a Middle East Expert
> 
> David is Non-Resident Fellow at the School of Iranian Studies, St Andrews, and author of War In 140 Characters: How Social Media Is Reshaping Conflict In The Twenty-First Century.
> 
> ...



Other than Soleimani and al-Muhandis, the other name I've been able to find was Mohammed Ridha Jabri. He was the PMF's public relations chief, and was travelling with Soleimani. If he was head of PR, that might explain the slower response on the PR front by PMF, but I'm of course speculating.

Interesting that the two of them were traveling together.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jan 2020)

Iraqi Lawmakers Urge End to U.S. Troop Presence as Iran Mourns a Slain General
The vote in Parliament, after the U.S. killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran in Baghdad, is not final until Iraq’s prime minister signs the bill.

Jan. 5, 2020
Updated 1:15 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD — Lawmakers in Iraq voted on Sunday to require the government to end the presence of American troops in the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil.
The decision to heed the demands of angry Shiite factions and politicians came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the bill. But since he drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, there was little doubt he would sign it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/iran-general-soleimani-iraq.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2020)

Hmm ...


> The Department of Homeland Security is monitoring the apparent hack of a government website, according to a senior administration official, who called it “defacement.”
> 
> The website on Saturday evening displayed an image of President Donald Trump bleeding from his mouth with an Islamic Revolutionary Guard fist in his face.
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Just breaking. IRAN is ending its commitments under the earlier nuclear deal limiting its nuclear development.



			
				CTV said:
			
		

> Iran says it will no longer abide by nuclear deal limits
> Nasser Karimi, Jon Gambrell and Zeina Karam
> The Associated Press
> Published Sunday, January 5, 2020 7:23AM EST
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2020)

Iran has offered $80m for Trumps head. What other country has put a bounty on another nations leader ?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran has offered $80m for Trumps head. What other country has put a bounty on another nations leader ?



Cite a source for this info or the post will be deleted.

Staff


----------



## Baz (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran has offered $80m for Trumps head. What other country has put a bounty on another nations leader ?



www.express.co.uk/news/world/1224314/Iran-news-US-World-War-3-Donald-Trump-latest-bounty-airstrike-Qassem-Soleimani

Concur with Brihards's assessment below...


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Cite a source for this info or the post will be deleted.
> 
> Staff



Allegedly some funeral announcer on Iranian state TV declared the bounty. It's moving fast on Twitter, but doesn't seem to be backed by anything official as of yet. To claim that 'Iran has placed a bounty' can't be backed based on the more specific account Baz's link gives. Depends how much stock you put in talking heads on Iranian state TV, I guess.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jan 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> www.express.co.uk/news/world/1224314/Iran-news-US-World-War-3-Donald-Trump-latest-bounty-airstrike-Qassem-Soleimani
> 
> Concur with Brihards's assessment below...



In what- USD or Iranian Rials?  :

How is one supposed to collect? Without immediately dying at the hands of the entire US military?

This whole thing is spinning from sublime, to ridiculous.

I am no Trump fan, but if even one hair on his head gets mussed, Iran ceases to exist. Even the Democrats would be onboard with that, I am certain.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Allegedly some funeral announcer on Iranian state TV declared the bounty. It's moving fast on Twitter, but doesn't seem to be backed by anything official as of yet. To claim that 'Iran has placed a bounty' can't be backed based on the more specific account Baz's link gives. Depends how much stock you put in talking heads on Iranian state TV, I guess.



Yes, just finished reading the article Baz posted. 

*ALL*: This is a largely tumultuous situation that isn’t going to simmer down soon. This is a public forum. Regardless of whether or not it is officially associated with DND is irrelevant. It’s common knowledge that several retired and currently serving members of the Canadian military (and other facets of public service) frequent this forum. Therefore, it attracts traffic from all locations, of all kinds.

If you’re going to introduce new information, do it accurately. Cite sources accurately. Quote sources accurately and read all sources thoroughly. 

A “believed funeral organizer” is a far cry from “Iran” as a whole.

_Please Include *ALL* relevant info as to not fuel any unnecessary fires when you post. _

Staff

 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iran-trump-bounty/


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In what- USD or Iranian Rials?  :
> 
> How is one supposed to collect? Without immediately dying at the hands of the entire US military?
> 
> ...



Meh. They do angry hyperbole on TV a bit differently over there. I wouldn't put any stock in it in terms of the actual thing being said. More just an indicator of how pissed off a lot of people are. The Iranian regime will ave considerable freedom of movement in terms of domestic support for retaliatory actions.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jan 2020)

Yet another bizarre, inflammatory, misguided tweet from POTUS:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?s=20 



“Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless.”


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2020)

A bit more on the IRQ Parliament resolution from a source that tends to do its homework ...


> *Iraq's Parliament Votes to End Security Agreement with U.S.*
> by Katherine Lawlor, Institute for the Study of War
> 
> *Key Takeaway:* _Iraq’s Parliament, the Council of Representatives (CoR), passed a non-binding resolution to cancel the request for military aid from the government of Iraq to the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition. The resolution does not require a U.S. withdrawal, which only the Prime Minister can order by rescinding the 2014 executive agreement with the U.S. It is unclear whether caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi has the authority to do so. The CoR resolution sets political conditions to justify subsequent Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces and installations, however. Nationalist Shi’a Cleric Muqtada al Sadr also called for the mobilization of new “resistance” groups to support such attacks._
> ...


Footnotes/further info on sources @ link.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yet another bizarre, inflammatory, misguided tweet from POTUS:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?s=20
> 
> ...



 :facepalm:   :brickwall:   :worms:   :trainwreck:


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yet another bizarre, inflammatory, misguided tweet from POTUS:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?s=20
> 
> ...



I love the smell of facepalm in the morning


----------



## dimsum (5 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yet another bizarre, inflammatory, misguided tweet from POTUS:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?s=20
> 
> ...



...and perhaps commit a war crime or 52.   :facepalm:

Also, is he now confirming that his tweets are official policy?  So there can be repercussions from what comes of them?


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2020)

I don't understand your post concerning war crimes. Some of our Democrats have thrown that around in ignorance. Since 2002 Congress authorized any President to be able to strike terrorists without having to get permission of Congress. In this way Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were killed. Obama flew a number of drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I don't understand your post concerning war crimes. Some of our Democrats have thrown that around in ignorance. Since 2002 Congress authorized any President to be able to strike terrorists without having to get permission of Congress. In this way Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were killed. Obama flew a number of drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.



Yesterday Trump said that 52 targets have been identified for the next round of reprisals, if necessary. He specifically noted that some would have ‘cultural’ import, which while not explicit, leaves a huge question mark hanging in the air. To attack cultural sites without military necessity is of course a war crime.

Today he expressly entertained the notion of deliberately and specifically disproportionate strikes. Proportionality is a key concept in customary international law of armed conflict.

So: it’s fair at this point to consider the possibility that Trump is actively entertaining future military action that would clearly and deliberately constitute war crimes. He has already shown in the recent round of pardons and judicial meddling that the laws of armed conflict are not something he holds in any particular regard.

None of this paints any picture of certainty. It’s merely a situation where a person has the means to do something, has expressly supported by both words and actions that he considers certain laws to not be applicable or important if he so decides, and where he has not clarified his words and actions to provide clarity. 

Each of us can hold our own personal opinions of what he is and isn’t capable of doing if he decides he wants to.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I don't understand your post concerning war crimes. Some of our Democrats have thrown that around in ignorance. Since 2002 Congress authorized any President to be able to strike terrorists without having to get permission of Congress. In this way Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were killed. Obama flew a number of drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.



Amongst others, are concerns regarding POTUS’ statement regarding potential destruction of things culturally important to the Iranian people. 

 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954.

:dunno:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Other than Soleimani and al-Muhandis, the other name I've been able to find was Mohammed Ridha Jabri. He was the PMF's public relations chief, and was travelling with Soleimani. If he was head of PR, that might explain the slower response on the PR front by PMF, but I'm of course speculating.
> 
> Interesting that the two of them were traveling together.



According to this BBC report  those killed included Soleimanis son-in-law and a member of the Lebanese Hezbollah. That's five deaths, to which we can add the two drivers. Initial reports indicated seven killed but later reports said eight killed.


----------



## Baz (5 Jan 2020)

There is also this:

Violent threats policy
Overview
March 2019
You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/violent-threats-glorification

Somehow I doubt it will be enforced in this case...


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> There is also this:
> 
> Violent threats policy
> Overview
> ...



An aside, but here’s a fun one for a law nerd: Are presidential tweets public record that Twitter now has a responsibility to help preserve regardless of terms of service violations?


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2020)

Proportionality applies to collateral, not military, damage.  Trump's (as usual) unclear statement didn't specify what he wants to be disproportionate about, and you can be as disproportionate as you want when writing down military forces (it's usually encouraged).  There is no prohibition, for example, on taking out 10 of their generals for every 1 they take out of his.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> An aside, but here’s a fun one for a law nerd: Are presidential tweets public record that Twitter now has a responsibility to help preserve regardless of terms of service violations?



Don't know about Twitter's responsibilities but the White House may need to. Presidential Records 44 U.S.C Chap 22 provides:



> § 2201. Definitions
> 
> (1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.
> 
> ...



https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

You decide. But I wonder what server all this stuff is stored on? I bet it's not a secure government one.

I do wonder sometimes as to whether we'll all just wake up one day like Bobby Ewing on _Dallas_ and find out that the last three years were just a bad dream.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2020)

> They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.



#WarCriminal

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1213980369776762880


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> #WarCriminal
> 
> https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1213980369776762880



I had to check, and yup- he did say that, verbatim to a pool of reporters. He's openly repudiating international law that exists to protect civilian cultural sites from military attack. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476868-trump-doubles-down-on-threat-to-iran-cultural-sites

He also said this:

There was also this:



			
				ThHeill.com said:
			
		

> President Trump said Sunday that the United States would not leave Iraq on “friendly” terms and threatened to impose sanctions on the country if forced to withdraw American troops.
> 
> “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis,” Trump told reporters about Air Force One Sunday afternoon when asked about the vote by Iraq’s parliament to end U.S. troop presence in the country.
> 
> ...



So- you're there, purportedly at their invitation. They decide to rescind that invitation after an assassination on their soil, and that becomes grounds for sanctions will apparently "make Iranian sanctions look tame"? Wonderful. Clearly the words of a well-balanced genius.

The man is...




Staff edit


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2020)

Further on the 'cultural property' thing, to prove there is an onus that America is legally obligated to respect:

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954



> Article 4. Respect for cultural property
> 
> 1. *The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties *by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict;* and by refraining from any act of hostility, directed against such property.*
> 
> ...



Amierca, Iran, and Iraq are all state signatories to this convention. This is international law that America is party to, beyond being an uncodified _jus cogens_ peremptory norm.

America's president is expressly stating that notwithstanding this law that he and America are absolutely bound by, "it doesn't work that way". Congress needs to get a friggin' grip on this.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Further on the 'cultural property' thing, to prove there is an onus that America is legally obligated to respect:
> 
> http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
> 
> ...



We desperately need a 'mouth hanging open in utter disbelief' emoji.

Sometimes  :brickwall: just isn't enough.

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jan 2020)

Congress has abdicated their responsibility over and over again.
Only the US Congress may declare war but I doubt they have the necessary intestinal fortitude to stop the current POTUS from starting one. 

Or am I being cynical?


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Congress has abdicated their responsibility over and over again.
> Only the US Congress may declare war but I doubt they have the necessary intestinal fortitude to do so.
> 
> Or am I being cynical?



They previously had it against Iraq but have had massive buyers' remorse since then. Sometimes it's not a bad thing to be a little gun shy. Bottom line is that the people should decide as to whether to invest the blood and treasure in a war and the last time I looked, the people of the US, by virtue of section 8 of the US Constitution, gave that power to the Congress.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jan 2020)

One thing is certainly emerging in big letters: the use of vanity social media by elected officials and especially those in charge of government, needs to be significantly regulated, perhaps even abolished. Maybe the world won’t go from zero to the kill button with a thoughtless tweet.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> One thing is certainly emerging in big letters: the use of vanity social media by elected officials and especially those in charge of government, needs to be significantly regulated, perhaps even abolished. Maybe the world won’t go from zero to the kill button with a thoughtless tweet.


Total agreement. ...I'm a Trump fan but I wish he'd keep his phone locked away.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2020)

Brihard. I tried to respond to your PM but your mailbox is full.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jan 2020)

No need to fret over Congress; just assume each party will do what is politically expedient and in its own interests if you really need to know.  The trustworthy institution is the US armed services, in which I doubt Trump has a lot of fans in the high command tiers.  Furthermore, I doubt they will execute manifestly unlawful orders regardless of their opinions of Trump.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Brihard. I tried to respond to your PM but your mailbox is full.
> 
> :cheers:



Oops, remedied, thanks!


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> No need to fret over Congress; just assume each party will do what is politically expedient and in its own interests if you really need to know.  The trustworthy institution is the US armed services, in which I doubt Trump has a lot of fans in the high command tiers.  Furthermore, I doubt they will execute manifestly unlawful orders regardless of their opinions of Trump.



That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error, and no amount of whining will help.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2020)

This from New Jersey's DHS ...


> ... _*Currently, there are no known or credible threats to New Jersey because of this incident. However, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has vowed “harsh revenge” in the aftermath of the killing.*_ The head of Hizballah called the attack an “act of international terrorism.” Recently, authorities arrested multiple Hizballah operatives in New Jersey and New York who conducted pre-operational surveillance for potential targets.
> 
> _*The New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) assesses that the United States will remain an attractive target for a range of cyber-attacks designed to disrupt daily operations, steal sensitive data, instill fear in the community, and hold critical operational data for ransom.*_ Organizations should remain vigilant and on alert for changes in their cyber threat environment and employ cyber hygiene best practices. Critical infrastructure owners and operators are advised to adopt a proactive, multilayered cybersecurity strategy to more effectively counter the threats posed by state and non-state actors ...


More @ link or in attached one-pager.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2020)

Does POTUS have to notify Congress and if so can he notify after the event?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2020)

This from NATO's SecGen following a meeting of the North Atlantic Council ...


> Good afternoon.
> 
> I have just chaired a meeting of the North Atlantic Council.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2020)

From IRN state media ...


> New Commander of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Qods Force Brigadier General Esmayeel Qaani underlined that the US should wait for Tehran's reprisal after assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.
> “The revenge for Soleimani’s martyrdom is a promise given by God, as the God is the main avenger,” Brigadier General Qaani said on Monday, addressing the funeral procession of late General Soleimani.
> 
> Brigadier General Qaani said that “we promise to continue Martyr Soleimani’s path with the same strength and his martyrdom will be reciprocated in several steps by removing the US from the region”.
> ...


More in attached PDF of article.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2020)

Targets...UP!

I can foresee another Iranian or two eating a Hellfire missile


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2020)

Various takes of NATO's latest ...

_*"NATO to review Iraq mission after Soleimani killing"*_ (Al Jazeera)
*"Canadian-led training mission in Iraq isn't dead, says NATO secretary-general"* (CBC.ca)
*"Canadian-led NATO mission in Iraq in limbo as alliance stands pat on suspension"* (The Canadian Press)
*"NATO head says allies stand behind U.S. after killing of Iranian military leader"* (_Globe & Mail_)
*"Nato chief holds back from endorsing US killing of Suleimani"* (_The Guardian_)


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jan 2020)

I would expect to see the NATO training mission to withdraw in the days and weeks ahead, then a few months later US forces at Blad will acould follow. Currently the government has not asked the US to withdraw.


----------



## Quirky (6 Jan 2020)

If ol' General Vance kicks the bucket or gets taken out for whatever reason, will we see a massive Canadian demonstration of support?







The Iranians sure love their military leadership.


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> If ol' General Vance kicks the bucket or gets taken out for whatever reason, will we see a massive Canadian demonstration of support?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Their love for their military is proportionate to their love of not having their families disappear...


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2020)

Edit:I'll move the question to an iran thread.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2020)

While mindful of the source (an outlet owned by a potential Presidential competitor in 2020), this editorial hits a number of nails on the head. A worthy read on the assassination of Soleimani, the risks, and the calculus that may be underlying the decision. And what has to be handled right for it to be worth it in the end.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-03/trump-iran-strike-how-the-u-s-gamble-can-pay-off



			
				Bloomberg Opinion said:
			
		

> Trump’s Iran Policy Spirals Toward Control
> The U.S. is gambling that the death of Tehran’s “indispensable man” will deter further aggression.
> By Hal Brands , 2020-01-03, 11:20:04 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2020)

Some of the latest as of about supper time Eastern time ...

_*"The United States-led military coalition against Islamic State said on Monday that it was pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the next few days and weeks, a letter seen by Reuters showed ..."*_ (Reuters)
_*"Esper says U.S. has made no decision about leaving Iraq"*_ (PBS, USA public radio)
op:


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2020)

Keep in mind the Iraqi parliament is partly,  if not a majority, controlled by Pro-Iran/Iranian-backed parties/politicians. The Prime Minister just quit due to corruption and pro-Iranian influence,  and the president rejected the replacement parliament suggested because he (the replacement) was too close to Iran. 2000 protesters have been killed for protesting Iranian influence among other things. It's of no surprise to me they'd vote like this.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the Iraqi parliament is partly,  if not a *majority, controlled by Pro-Iran/Iranian-backed parties/politicians.* The Prime Minister just quit due to corruption and pro-Iranian influence,  and the president rejected the replacement parliament suggested because he (the replacement) was too close to Iran. 2000 protesters have been killed for protesting Iranian influence among other things. *It's of no surprise to me they'd vote like this.*



Yup.  

Democracy.

It is messy, and unpredictable.

But, it is democracy.  There is no guaranteeing that the will of the people will be wise.  There is also no guarantee that it will not be twisted, perverted, or used.  This holds true in every democracy in the world, old and new, east and west, natural and forced.

But still.

Democracy.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Jan 2020)

Yes. America is a democracy too, which seems to fit  sone of the above characteristics !!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2020)

This from SecDef ...
_*"Pentagon Rules Out Striking Iranian Cultural Sites, Contradicting Trump* -- The defense secretary acknowledged that “the laws of armed conflict” prohibited attacking antiquities and said the military had no plans to do so, even though the president declared them targets ..."_


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Open letter from the CDS via the CAF info-machine on Twitter ...


> The news coming out of the Middle East is alarming for many of you, as such I thought it best to communicate with you directly to provide an update on Canada’s missions in the region, and more importantly, the status and well-being of your family and friends deployed in Iraq and Kuwait and elsewhere in the Region.
> 
> First and foremost, let me assure you that all necessary force protection measures that can be taken have been taken. The safety and security of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel is my priority, as it is the priority of my senior leadership. Force protection measures continue to be considered, reassessed, and modified as required on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


... with some initial MSM coverage ...


> The Canadian military is temporarily relocating some soldiers from Iraq to Kuwait due to security concerns, chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said Tuesday.
> 
> The move, which Vance announced in an open letter to the families of Canadian soldiers in Iraq that was posted to Twitter, follows the lead of Germany and several other allies who have withdrawn some of their troops.
> 
> ...


More @ link & attached letter.

_- op edit to add text of CDS letter in post -_


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2020)

We (_HMCS Fredericton_) are set to deploy on a 7 month NATO very soon (week(s) away).  It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on our mission.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Jan 2020)

CDS announcement: Does this interrupt the timeline for the service medal?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2020)

The General Service Medal isn't awarded to CAF members serving in Iraq.  

But, I'd be more concerned with the reason folks are being moved to Kuwait and FP effectiveness until they get where I suspect they're going in Kuwait.  

Stick on the ice, troops.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

Are we putting our training mission on hold because we're worried about our "Iraq allies" turning on us? If that's the case maybe we shouldn't be teaching them how to be better fighters. 

If we're worried about outsider attacks from Iran loyalists how is it different from fighting in Afghanistan? We didn't put our mission on hold when the Taliban threatened us.

As for getting moved from Iraq to. Kuwait, ouch!


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are we putting our training mission on hold because we're worried about our "Iraq allies" turning on us? If that's the case maybe we shouldn't be teaching them how to be better fighters.
> 
> As for getting moved from Iraq to. Kuwait, ouch!



It’s the smart thing to do.

Being moved to Kuwait will be an upgrade.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It’s the smart thing to do.
> 
> Being moved to Kuwait will be an upgrade.



Those members are going to be packed into crappy transient quarters in Kuwait which are not intended to handle such a large influx or amount of people. Even going to meals will probably be a logistical problem. It's going to be super horrible for whoever's stuck there IMO.


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

Rocket attack on al Assad airbase...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Those members are going to be packed into crappy transient quarters in Kuwait which are not intended to handle such a large influx or amount of people. Even going to meals will probably be a logistical problem. It's going to be super horrible for whoever's stuck there IMO.



Yup, I get it.  I've been to both the likely locations they're headed to.  I also know what the SF there is like, and it was pretty easy to sleep soundly once you were inside the ring.

Maybe they'll get lucky and it will be Mongolian grill night; always worth the wait, if not there's some choices outside of the DFAC if that's their biggest worry.  I'd take that over a potential shitshow in country.   :2c:


----------



## brihard (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Rocket attack on al Assad airbase...
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html



Video on Twitter of outbound missiles from Iran. Looks like the attack is legit. Some talk of other possible missile strikes up near Erbil.

Here we go...


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2020)

Hope everyone is safe. The President if possible should not retaliate this time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Rocket attack on al Assad airbase...
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html



2 for 1.  Attack on the US *officially*, with the *unofficial* aspect of maybe taking some Sunni's out.


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Hope everyone is safe. The President if possible should not retaliate this time.



How does he not respond?  I don’t think he has a choice now after dropping the gauntlet. 

Looks like these were missiles not rockets....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2020)

I bet those missiles were launched from mobile launchers setup in civilian populated areas, in the hopes that Iranian civilians get targeted. US response should be slow and deliberate to avoid civilians as much as possible.


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet those missiles were launched from mobile launchers setup in civilian populated areas, in the hopes that Iranian civilians get targeted. US response should be slow and deliberate to avoid civilians as much as possible.



Or cultural sites.  Anything to shape the narrative.


----------



## gryphonv (7 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet those missiles were launched from mobile launchers setup in civilian populated areas, in the hopes that Iranian civilians get targeted. US response should be slow and deliberate to avoid civilians as much as possible.



Good thing they have a lot of target-able sites outside of civilian areas. 

US don't have to kill the exact sites that shot the missles, a bloody nose is still a bloody nose.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> How does he not respond?  I don’t think he has a choice now after dropping the gauntlet.


To be fair, POTUS45 doesn't _have to_ respond within the hour - or in ways we'll hear about publicly right away.

Meanwhile ...


> The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is sharing the following information with the cybersecurity community as a primer for assisting in the protection of our Nation’s critical infrastructure in light of the current tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States and Iran’s historic use of cyber offensive activities to retaliate against perceived harm
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

US could always pull out of Iraq and invade Iran. Two birds with one stone.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 2 for 1.  Attack on the US *officially*, with the *unofficial* aspect of maybe taking some Sunni's out.



I completely disagree with this assessment.  Iran is not trying to kill Sunnis in this particular case, and to suggest so is to misinterpret the context, and revert to mean.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Those members are going to be packed into crappy transient quarters in Kuwait which are not intended to handle such a large influx or amount of people. Even going to meals will probably be a logistical problem. It's going to be super horrible for whoever's stuck there IMO.



I doubt it.  That base can support a huge influx.  Better than sitting in Iraq...


----------



## gryphonv (7 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I completely disagree with this assessment.  Iran is not trying to kill Sunnis in this particular case, and to suggest so is to misinterpret the context, and revert to mean.



I agree with you here, a power vacuum caused by a US withdrawal in Iraq will only serve to help Iran.


----------



## brihard (7 Jan 2020)

NBC’s Tehran bureau is reporting that there has been a second wave of missiles launched. I don’t know the sourcing on that; I’m only bothering to repeat it because it’s coming from non-State foreign media who are on the ground.

Sunrise is in three hours. By morning our time there will be a good damage assessment done, and they’ll probably be preparing the night’s sorties...

Frig frig frig... I hope the US can exercise restraint on this. If any Americans were harmed, I’m afraid of how much this could escalate.


----------



## Altair (7 Jan 2020)

The irony here being that killing of the Iranian general was to prevent an imminent attack.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> NBC’s Tehran bureau is reporting that there has been a second wave of missiles launched. I don’t know the sourcing on that; I’m only bothering to repeat it because it’s coming from non-State foreign media who are on the ground.


This from IRN media*** (translated via Google Translate) ...


> The Tasnim , a few minutes before the start of the second wave of missile attacks. These attacks Iran, the headquarters of the American base about an hour and a half after the first attacks started.
> 
> In the first attacks, more than a dozen missiles were fired at the US base at Einless.
> 
> ...


*** - Links to an archive.org version of the article, in Arabic, for those who don't want to link to IRN sites these days.  Screen capture of original in Arabic also attached as PDF


----------



## QV (7 Jan 2020)

Hilarious how so many urge restraint from the US (here, media, elsewhere). No urging of restraint from a murderous regime?  

I hope / predict the US delivers a severe thumping, but stops short of an invasion.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I doubt it.  That base can support a huge influx.  Better than sitting in Iraq...



Fair enough. The base can you're right. I could be wrong but I'm guessing Canadians from Iraq would be billeted in the Canadian camp in Kuwait and not sent to hang out in American lines on the other side of the base. From what I understand the Canadian camps not being designed to handle more than a couple dozen transients at a time but maybe we'll see some common sense prevail. 

I personally think the biggest threat to coalition forces are insider attacks. I'd rather stay in Iraq in an area that's relatively known to me, carrying my gun and armor, than whatever they're probably doing in Kuwait but that's me.

As for the rocket threat I feel like it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone Iran has rockets and missles and we should have some kind of defense against it. Was Trumps big plan Iran would be too afraid of the US to retaliate?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2020)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I agree with you here, a power vacuum caused by a US withdrawal in Iraq will only serve to help Iran.



Not if we withdraw from Iraq into Iran


----------



## CBH99 (7 Jan 2020)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954


This went from bad to worse pretty damn quick...


----------



## Spencer100 (7 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup, I get it.  I've been to both the likely locations they're headed to.  I also know what the SF there is like, and it was pretty easy to sleep soundly once you were inside the ring.
> 
> Maybe they'll get lucky and it will be Mongolian grill night; always worth the wait, if not there's some choices outside of the DFAC if that's their biggest worry.  I'd take that over a potential shitshow in country.   :2c:



Plus looks like they could be in the middle of a much bigger war zone.  I hope can they move out ASAP. 

Trump to address the nation tonight


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jan 2020)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Plus looks like they could be in the middle of a much bigger war zone.  I hope can they move out ASAP.
> 
> Trump to address the nation tonight



The Address has been cancelled, national security was spotted leaving the white house


----------



## FJAG (7 Jan 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> Hilarious how so many urge restraint from the US (here, media, elsewhere). No urging of restraint from a murderous regime?
> 
> I hope / predict the US delivers a severe thumping, but stops short of an invasion.



With respect to you, and those who have given me negative milpoints for expressing my views against the White House strategy (or lack thereof) in this matter, what you are suggesting is trying to beat a religious ideology and regional power struggle into the ground through an antiseptic stand-off campaign of thumping through air and missile power. 

That simply has never worked in the past and currently isn't working for the Saudis in Yemen. And therein lies the folly of the initial strike on Soleimani. Yes, he and Iran are the problem but, no matter how you wargame that scenario, it leads to escalation by Iran and counter escalation by the US _ad infinitum_ which will probably draw in various other regional players. Now that the missiles are flying how long do you think Israel will be kept out of this?

For those members who have told me that my negative views of the Trump administration are "unhelpful-This is the time for the West to show some unified leadership". I ask, why should we in the way that you allude to? The Middle East certainly isn't unified. The West has been unified in their approach against Iran in the past (more than less) but couldn't resolve the problem, but merely contain it to the region. That was success in a way.

Canada didn't "unify" on Iraq War 2 and with 20/20 hindsight we were right not to jump on board. Again, with respect, the White House (and I suggest, not the US as a whole) has rejected any Western unified approach on Iran and has decided to go it alone (and without Congressional approval). What's needed is international diplomacy to get the region to resolve it's own problems which, again, are based in deeply ingrained religious schisms which are mostly stirred up by the Iranians. Any attempts to use military power, however, is doomed to failure or at the very least, will result in another long-term needless expenditure of blood and treasure.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2020)

The US might be better to adopt a more Israeli like approach, hit back proportionally, without notice and without comment. If it continues, focus on pure military targets. How many military assets can Iran afford to lose?


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2020)

Initial reports would seem to have no US casualties but some Iraq casualties. !0 missiles were shot at al assad and just a few at Irbil and one other base. Maybe they just wanted to launch but not cross the red line,so they could claim revenge taken. Also the lack of an address by POTUS might be he will wait.

I would look for ADA assets to moved into the AO. Iran is said to have 2000 short to medium range missiles so anything we send might be overwhelmed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jan 2020)

>ad infinitum

Doubtful.  Eventually, a country can be made to run out of missiles, aircraft, ships, and suffer a depletion of generals.

The fact that Iran insists on dragging Israel into everything might be a clue as to where the most bad faith lies.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jan 2020)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fworld%2Fmissile-attacks-target-us-forces-in-iraq-senior-military-source-says-iran-suspected


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Jan 2020)

Looks like Iran is wrapping it up. This attack was hopefully only for domestic Iranian consumption. As long as everyone keeps their cool, the US can deescalate this by not responding to the SCUD attacks.

https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953?s=20

Although the Article 51 claim is bizarre.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jan 2020)

I have to hand it to Iran for playing their hand well.

They appear not to have tried real hard to actually hurt or kill any US military folks, which would have removed any serious opposition in Congress to further US attacks on Iranian targets.

As it stands now, Iran has provided the US no real justification to strike again. 

Both sides can mutter threats and walk away.


----------



## 211RadOp (8 Jan 2020)

Our "numerous Canadian C-17 Globemaster aircraft" are providing lift to get US Military Personnel out of Iraq.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/some-us-troops-transported-from-iraq-to-kuwait-aboard-canadian-aircraft-report-says/ar-BBYJcv0?ocid=ientp


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jan 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have to hand it to Iran for playing their hand well.
> 
> They appear not to have tried real hard to actually hurt or kill any US military folks, which would have removed any serious opposition in Congress to further US attacks on Iranian targets.
> 
> ...



Posturing.... an ancient Middle Eastern (and others) approach to conflict avoidance/ grievance resolution that works well in some situations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I completely disagree with this assessment.  Iran is not trying to kill Sunnis in this particular case, and to suggest so is to misinterpret the context, and revert to mean.



You'll have to forgive my pessimism;  it's not like Shia and Sunni are known for hosting family picnics together.  If it was secondary result, intended or otherwise, I don't believe many tears would be shed...


----------



## QV (8 Jan 2020)

From Ben Shapiro on Twitter:  Obama's strategy on Iran was basic appeasement of a terrorist regime. Trump's strategy on Iran is basic deterrence of a terrorist regime.

I think Ben Shapiro gets that about right.  It looks like Trump has been getting a lot of things about right.


----------



## mariomike (8 Jan 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> From Ben Shapiro on Twitter:  Obama's strategy on Iran was basic appeasement of a terrorist regime. Trump's strategy on Iran is basic deterrence of a terrorist regime.



That's sort of what Rudy is tweeting,


> The Ayatollahs’ 40 year #REGIMEOFTERROR is, and has been throughout, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.
> 
> The Obama-Biden administration practiced appeasement.
> https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1214857073634291712





> Trump tweets predicting Obama would start a war with Iran to get re-elected are coming back to haunt him
> https://www.businessinsider.com/old-trump-tweets-emerge-claim-obama-wanted-war-iran-2020-1


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2020)

POTUS45's remarks this morning ...


> THE PRESIDENT: As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Good morning. I'm pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2020)

And now, the IRN state info-machine's take on the attacks in IRQ *** ...


> Some 80 US army personnel have been killed and nearly 200 more wounded in Iran's Wednesday missile attacks carried out in reprisal for the assassination of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Qods Force Commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.
> 
> "Early estimates indicate heavy US casualties in Iran's missile attack," an informed IRGC Intelligence Department told FNA Wednesday morning.
> 
> ...


*** - links to archive.org version of article, not directly to IRN media site - full text also available in attached PDF


----------



## kkwd (8 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And now, the IRN state info-machine's take on the attacks in IRQ *** ...*** - links to archive.org version of article, not directly to IRN media site - full text also available in attached PDF



A promotion was included in this release. Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.


----------



## mariomike (8 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> POTUS45's remarks this morning...



Are trending on Twitter...

#TrumpSpeech
https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpSpeech?src=hash


----------



## gryphonv (8 Jan 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Are trending on Twitter...
> 
> #TrumpSpeech
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpSpeech?src=hash



Love or hate the guy, he never misses a chance to lay blame on the Obama administration.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2020)

Kind of how our present leader just ran his election campaign against Stephen Harper and not Mr. Scheer?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2020)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Love or hate the guy, he never misses a chance to lay blame on the Obama administration.


... or take a bit of credit in the midst of big happenings.  He _may_ live to regret this one, though ...


> ... we do not need Middle East oil ...


... given they still get quite a chunk from the Persian Gulf area (source of graphic).


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jan 2020)

[quote author=tomahawk6] 

Since the CF personnel in Iraq were moved to Kuwait does their hazardous duty pay stop ?
[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken they're all getting the same hazard pay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken they're all getting the same hazard pay.



Kuwait was lower HA/RA rates than Iraq.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Kuwait was lower HA/RA rates than Iraq.



Thanks. I was certian they were the same level recently. Out of curiosity would you happen to have access to a source for the different locations and different hardship/risk allowances?


----------



## mariomike (8 Jan 2020)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> , he never misses a chance to lay blame on the Obama administration.



That goes at least as far back as when he was pushing Birtherism.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQgS5ukglnXwFWeNlgbmT-hkQ8MHw%3A1578527067705&source=hp&ei=W2kWXou3KKOO9PwPluSw4Ac&q=trump+birtherism&oq=trump+birtherism&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.2608.8956..9506...1.0..0.637.2540.3j11j0j1j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131i67j0i67j0i131j0j0i131i20i263j0i3j0i20i263.GcK7FnAIeSM&ved=0ahUKEwjL0IvJl_XmAhUjB50JHRYyDHwQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1578527076696


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2020)

This from RUS state media ...


> Iran has completed its revenge for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani and won’t take any new military steps if there is no US aggression, Iranian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi has said.
> 
> "Our action was proportionate to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Our action was completed. So if the Americans do not act militarily against Iran, as far as Iran is concerned we are not going to act in return," Majid Takht-Ravanchi said answering a TASS question on Tehran’s reaction to US President Donald Trump’s statement.
> 
> The diplomat noted that Tehran acted in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter fulfilling its right to self-defense. "But if they decide to act militarily Iran will have no other option than to respond." ...


op:


----------



## brihard (8 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from RUS state media ...op:



Clever. Fire a modest number of the weapons they know to generally be least effective, claim a sizable kill count on domestic state run media but don't actually hurt anyone, throw out some bluster, and declare themselves to be victorious. Maybe this will simmer down. We can only hope.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Jan 2020)

From Haaretz, the man who replaces Soleimani:



> Iran Has Already Replaced Soleimani, Here Is Everything We Know About Esmail Ghaani
> 
> The Associated Press
> Jan 07, 2020 10:45 AM
> ...



 Link


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks. I was certian they were the same level recently. Out of curiosity would you happen to have access to a source for the different locations and different hardship/risk allowances?



Sent you a PM with a link to a DWAN doc, but it's from 2015...if anyone has the latest #s from DHRC/DCBA that might be more useful.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... or take a bit of credit in the midst of big happenings.  He _may_ live to regret this one, though ...... given they still get quite a chunk from the Persian Gulf area (source of graphic).



Well and who is to blame for that? I bet if ME oil and shipping rates skyrocketed, they wished that there was a magical pipeline from the West.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... I bet if ME oil and shipping rates skyrocketed, they wished that there was a magical pipeline from the West.


True enough  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well and who is to blame for that? I bet if ME oil and shipping rates skyrocketed, they wished that there was a magical pipeline from the West.



Here's a little chart that tracks oil prices, their highs and lows and averages over specified time spans. While there have been some very significant peaks, all in all over the last twenty and forty years they have been relatively level. I would think anyone planning long range would factor that in even if there was another peak to come.

My own view is that it's a simple math equation that if a) we have oil/gas in Alberta and b) we need oil/gas in the East and in BC, then c) we should build pipelines and refineries sufficient to meet anticipated demand. 







op:


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2020)

>he never misses a chance to lay blame on the Obama administration. 

That's a specific example of a general principle:

[the current administration] never misses a chance to lay blame on [the prior] administration.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2020)

This idea that Iran's response is going to provide "face" for domestic consumption...does Iran have its population locked out of the internet?  My guess is that Iranians, along with the rest of the world, are going to know that the US took out a high-value player in exchange for some dirt thrown around.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >he never misses a chance to lay blame on the Obama administration.
> 
> That's a specific example of a general principle:
> 
> [the current administration] never misses a chance to lay blame on [the prior] administration.



Except the prior administration in this case put 150 billion dollars in Iran's pocket, unless that's an exaggeration?


----------



## FJAG (9 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Except the prior administration in this case put 150 billion dollars in Iran's pocket, unless that's an exaggeration?



It most probably is. See below.



> Angered by deadly U.S. airstrikes that targeted an Iran-backed militia, dozens of Iraqi Shiite militiamen and their supporters broke into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad on Dec. 31.
> 
> The next day, a Facebook post referencing former President Barack Obama made this claim:
> 
> ...



https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2020/jan/07/facebook-posts/facebook-claim-wrongly-states-obama-gave-iran-150-/

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2020)

$150B is the highest estimate.  As for the "its own funds", the matter was before the courts (Iran's claims against the US), and the amounts claimed by Iran were swamped by counter-claims from the US.

David Harsanyi at NRO outlines some of the pieces people are throwing around.  Iran got the money because Obama wanted a deal.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jan 2020)

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-sent-multiple-messages-to-us-that-its-attacks-were-done/ar-BBYLYBQ?ocid=spartandhp

As US officials were busy assessing Iran's missile attacks in Iraq late Tuesday, messages began arriving from Iran saying one thing: We're done.
Iran initiated contact through at least three back channels starting late Tuesday, including through Switzerland and other countries. There were "multiple messages and they were all the same," a person familiar with the matter said. Iran wanted to convey their retaliatory action had ended -- and was waiting to see how the US would respond.
The back-and-forth communication came as American officials were still determining the extent of the Iranian attacks, and were formulating plans for a response. In response, the US sought to communicate to Iran that its proxies in the region were of equal concern as the activities of the Iranian state, the person familiar said.   More at link


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2020)

> The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are planning to adopt a higher security posture in Ottawa as of Thursday, Global News has learned.
> 
> The force is expected to use the elite tactical officers of the Emergency Response Team to provide increased protection and security in the national capital.
> 
> ...


More here.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Here's a little chart that tracks oil prices, their highs and lows and averages over specified time spans. While there have been some very significant peaks, all in all over the last twenty and forty years they have been relatively level. I would think anyone planning long range would factor that in even if there was another peak to come.
> 
> My own view is that it's a simple math equation that if a) we have oil/gas in Alberta and b) we need oil/gas in the East and in BC, then c) we should build pipelines and refineries sufficient to meet anticipated demand.
> 
> ...



Personally I prefer to look at commodity vs commodity pricing (or barter exchange).  It takes the banks and inflation out of the discussion but retains market volatility.  It also has the advantage of reflecting market opinions in the economically conservative or traditionally minded regions where much of the world's oil originates.  Coming off the Gold Standard in 1972 drove the rise of OPEC and the Oil Crisis of 1973.

Oil vs Gold






Market Trends prices oil at 24.94 bbl per oz of gold currently

https://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart

Short form, in my opinion, we are at the upper end of the normal range as experienced over the last 70 years.  The underlying economy is stable.  Fiat Currencies continue to demonstrate their historical inflationary tendency.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2020)

Intriguing ...


> The Islamic State group gloated over the recent U.S. killing of a senior Iranian general, who rose to prominence by advising forces fighting the extremists.
> 
> In the first IS comments since Gen. Qassem Soleimani's slaying, the group said his death "pleased the hearts of believers." The editorial was released in the group's al-Nabaa online newspaper late Thursday.
> 
> ...


A bit more @ link


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2020)

> The force is expected to use the elite tactical officers of the Emergency Response Team to provide increased protection and security in the national capital.



Does the ERT sit around watching movies until they're called into action or do they have some kind of secondary duties or more mundane duties? 

I'm not sure if sending an elite tactical police response team on security detail is the most economical use for them?  I'm sure they'd do a great job but it seems strange.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2020)

Not just Ottawa has increased security. It includes cities across the US, and I would suspect Toronto too,
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRw2IBvR4I35Qk5nn-Z_6i3Rduv0Q%3A1578689073510&ei=MeIYXvbyHoOQtQWDnLigBQ&q=nypd+security+iran&oq=nypd+security+iran&gs_l=psy-ab.12...10097.11196..12652...0.0..0.247.1728.0j5j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j35i304i39.94y8SaJL-oA&ved=0ahUKEwi2z7-L8_nmAhUDSK0KHQMODlQQ4dUDCAo#spf=1578689087025


----------



## CBH99 (10 Jan 2020)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Intriguing ...A bit more @ link




When the US and ISIS both want the same man killed, and the man happens to be someone who fought ISIS even if he wasn't doing it hand in hand with the US.

This world is getting way too complicated for me...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does the ERT sit around watching movies until they're called into action or do they have some kind of secondary duties or more mundane duties?
> 
> I'm not sure if sending an elite tactical police response team on security detail is the most economical use for them?  I'm sure they'd do a great job but it seems strange.



Hasn't that always been the problem with ERT? You have a bunch of highly trained professionals sitting around doing nothing so rather then let them get bored you use them for more mundane duties. Mind you providing extra security in a situation like this is hardly mundane.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You have a bunch of highly trained professionals sitting around doing nothing so rather then let them get bored you use them for more mundane duties.



Depends on the employer. ETF responds to low adrenaline jobs - even panhandler complaints - in between high priority calls.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jan 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hasn't that always been the problem with ERT? You have a bunch of highly trained professionals sitting around doing nothing so rather then let them get bored you use them for more mundane duties. Mind you providing extra security in a situation like this is hardly mundane.



And mundane duties like gate guard and perimeter sweeps/patrols are fine but need to be done by the non ERT people. If your ERT people are on gate duty or patrol and a true emergency arises then there may be a time lag for a response. Mundane duties will also dull the edge.
IMO the best way to employ them is conducting refresher training (but not too much) and run some mock scenarios.


----------



## brihard (10 Jan 2020)

Ottawa ERT has lots to do. They aren’t just sitting around. It doesn’t look like what people typically think of when they imagine police tactical teams, and yes it can be mundane... But they’ve always got tasks or training to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> When the US and ISIS both want the same man killed, and the man happens to be someone who fought ISIS even if he wasn't doing it hand in hand with the US.
> 
> This world is getting way too complicated for me...



The flip side of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend ...... Pro tem."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Jan 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hasn't that always been the problem with ERT? You have a bunch of highly trained professionals sitting around doing nothing so rather then let them get bored you use them for more mundane duties. Mind you providing extra security in a situation like this is hardly mundane.



The French Military has been complaining about this recently with respect to France's VIGIPIRATE system which has slowly but surely been chipping away at France's military forces and overburdening them with needless public security duties.

It's a vicious cycle of politicians wanting to be seen doing something and getting the Armed Forces there decisively engaged in business they really shouldn't be doing.  It's too the point where the terror alert is ALWAYS HIGH and every task becomes a NO FAIL TASK so the government ends up committing the French Foreign Legion, Colonial Marines and Alpine Regiments, whom are the elite of the French Army, to Public Security Duties having then aimlessly walking around Paris in circles when they really should be training and preparing for overseas deployments.


----------



## FJAG (13 Jan 2020)

There seems to be a shift in the explanation as to why Soleimani was targeted and "imminent" threat seems to be falling by the wayside.



> Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from 'imminent' threat to deterrence
> Zachary Cohen
> By Zachary Cohen, CNN
> 
> ...



The highlighted portion gives me particular concern when we deal with the issue of not receiving Congressional approval.

When one deals with Obama's drone strikes (and even earlier Bush and later Trump era ones) we are dealing with strikes against terrorists and terrorist organizations that are not acting on behalf of a state (or if so they are acting clandestinely) and under existing Congressional approvals. Soleimani on the other hand was a senior officer in the Iranian military. While there is little question that he has been an instigator of destructive terrorist activity in the region, he is doing so as part of a campaign by Iran. In effect, the targeting of Soleimani as an agent of the Iranian government is an act of war against Iran. Whether or not the targeting was justified isn't the political issue here. The issue is that the President does not have the authority to initiate an act of war against another country. That is the solely within the authority of Congress under Section 8 of the US Constitution:



> Section 8
> 1: The Congress shall have Power ...
> 11: To declare War ...



I think that the US Executive branch has adopted a rather free wheeling definition of the term "deterrence" that seems to include initiating "spoiling attacks" against other countries.

Quite frankly, if there had been clear and convincing evidence that Iran had, through Souleimani, been waging hostile attacks against the US (which it seems it had) then (like for Pearl Harbor) it should have been up to the President to seek approval from Congress that a state of war existed with Iran. Assuming Congress approved that, then and only then, would the President be able to take appropriate measures, including military acts, against Iran and it's personnel.

I'm surprised that this administration doesn't quite understand that. Or maybe it's that they don't care.

 :2c:


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2020)

Are we starting a pool yet on how long til Esper is asked for his resignation? He has now publicly contradicted Trump twice in a week and a half.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Are we starting a pool yet on how long til Esper is asked for his resignation? He has now publicly contradicted Trump twice in a week and a half.



Two contradictions cancel each other out, so it's all good.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jan 2020)

>Quite frankly, if there had been clear and convincing evidence that Iran had, through Souleimani, been waging hostile attacks against the US

If Iran attacked US targets (acts of war), why would it matter which military targets are selected for responses?  For example, would the administration have been forbidden from responding to the missile attacks on land targets by sinking an Iranian patrol boat?

What does a non-hostile attack look like?


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Quite frankly, if there had been clear and convincing evidence that Iran had, through Souleimani, been waging hostile attacks against the US
> 
> If Iran attacked US targets (acts of war), why would it matter which military targets are selected for responses?  For example, would the administration have been forbidden from responding to the missile attacks on land targets by sinking an Iranian patrol boat?
> 
> What does a non-hostile attack look like?



I think you missed his point. It’s less about how America would have struck back, and more about the power to declare war being reserved for Congress. Even military conflicts that fall short of declared war are supposed to receive congressional approval.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jan 2020)

The point depends on whether Iran has attacked the US - which it has.  It could just as easily have been "they shot down a drone; we killed some officers".

Congress could tighten the rules and clarify, if Congress were willing to take responsibility for responses to acts of war and then explain decisions to voters.

I have no regard for the possibility that the supporters of the past two administrations, having crossed lines when it suited them, will behave differently when they are back in control.  This is all just a temporary hissy fit for political advantage.


----------



## FJAG (14 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The point depends on whether Iran has attacked the US - which it has.  It could just as easily have been "they shot down a drone; we killed some officers".
> 
> Congress could tighten the rules and clarify, if Congress were willing to take responsibility for responses to acts of war and then explain decisions to voters.
> 
> I have no regard for the possibility that the supporters of the past two administrations, having crossed lines when it suited them, will behave differently when they are back in control.  This is all just a temporary hissy fit for political advantage.



Therein lies the point Brad. The US Constitution was written at a time when nation states fought nation states and the creator's of the US Constitution, knowing that war is a national commitment, decided in their infinite wisdom to put the war fighting power into the hands of Congress.

Since 9/11 there have been both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) both receiving Congressional endorsement and terrorist activities carried out by stateless entities. The fact that many of these stateless entities were the proxy forces of actual nation-states has been a more-or-less open secret but no one was particularly enamored with the idea of going after the principals involved with an actual declaration of war.

To the best of my knowledge, no actual Iranian forces were ever used to kill Americans. Instead Iran guided and supplied proxy forces with this. The same can be said, however, for western nations who have been covertly and overtly training and supplying proxy forces in various campaigns. In doing so both sides have stayed out of directly declaring hostilities or taking military actions on a nation state to nation state basis (not just the last two decades but pretty much since WW2)

This is where the hit on Souleimani is different. It is a direct action by one nation state against a senior officer of another nation state and no longer a proxy fight. It's clearly and undisputably an act of war and therefore should clearly be a Congressional matter not an executive one.

The problem here is that this is neither "temporary" nor a "hissy fit". What is happening is an attempt by the executive to create a new normal method of instigating hostilities in contravention to the US Constitution.

I find it somewhat ironic that the same people who espouse the US Constitution for everything from gun ownership rights to religious freedom and freedom to not make wedding cakes for gays, are now cheering the executive on in doing an end run on Congress's constitutional power to declare or limit the nation's entry into war with another country.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Congress could tighten the rules and clarify, if Congress were willing to take responsibility for responses to acts of war and then explain decisions to voters.



They did, in a joint resolution, bipartisan, by both houses of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/war-powers.php


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jan 2020)

Don't bother trying to move the goalposts.  Iranians have, in the recent past, attacked Americans and American property, including military.  A death need not be involved.

If Congress were serious about its powers, it would exercise them, and could have exercised them at any time relevant in the decades prior to the current administration's tenure.  Taking responsibility means more than just pointing to the War Powers Resolution.

What people did in the past is a likely indicator of what they will do in the future.  When the next Democratic and non-Trump Republican administrations take over, we'll find out how whether there is any commitment beneath all the righteous bleating on either side.  Until then, more generals dead seems to equal fewer soldiers dead.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jan 2020)

>I find it somewhat ironic that the same people ... are now cheering the executive on in doing an end run on Congress's constitutional power to declare or limit the nation's entry into war with another country.

So would I, if it were uniformly true, which it manifestly is not.  Plenty of conservative constitutionalists would like to see Congress properly involved, and have written to that effect over the past few days.  Few are dumb enough to want to prevent the executive from doing anything while one party in a split Congress chooses to sit on its hands.  The administration has not sought a war - straw man, that - but has applied a limited and practical solution to a real problem; Congress still has complete authority to declare one, I suppose.

The irony I enjoy is the chorus of people at one time deploring the administration's dis-involvement in Syria, land of ephemeral red lines, and now deploring the administration's rather firm red line which resulted in no additional involvement required.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2020)

This doesn't sound good ...

_*“Iraqi Powerful Cleric Calls for Massive Protests Against US Troops”*_ (Voice of America)
_*“From Iran, Sadr calls for ‘million-man’ march against US presence in Iraq”*_ (Kurdish media)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Therein lies the point Brad. The US Constitution was written at a time when nation states fought nation states and the creator's of the US Constitution, knowing that war is a national commitment, decided in their infinite wisdom to put the war fighting power into the hands of Congress.
> 
> Since 9/11 there have been both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) both receiving Congressional endorsement and terrorist activities carried out by stateless entities. The fact that many of these stateless entities were the proxy forces of actual nation-states has been a more-or-less open secret but no one was particularly enamored with the idea of going after the principals involved with an actual declaration of war.
> 
> ...




Is the Quds force an actual military or a paramilitary proxy organisation?

Was said General in Iraq with the knowledge and the permission of the Iraqi government?


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is the Quds force an actual military or a paramilitary proxy organisation?
> 
> Was said General in Iraq with the knowledge and the permission of the Iraqi government?



Obama made use of drone strikes even once targeting a US citizen which did not hardly merit much if any talk of war powers. Trump acted no differently in targeting an enemy target. Not much was said about why this guy was even in Iraq ?


----------



## FJAG (15 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is the Quds force an actual military or a paramilitary proxy organisation?
> 
> Was said General in Iraq with the knowledge and the permission of the Iraqi government?



The Quds Force is an active arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps which itself is a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. It's akin to both special operations forces or CIA which advises, equips and trains (and possibly participates with)  foreign military and paramilitary forces.

This from Wikipedia:



> Adil Abdul-Mahdi, Prime Minister of Iraq, said he was scheduled to meet Soleimani on the day the attack happened, with the purpose of Soleimani's trip being that Soleimani was delivering Iran's response to a previous message from Saudi Arabia which Iraq had relayed.[100] Abdul-Mahdi also said that before the drone strike, Trump had called him to request that Abdul-Mahdi mediate the conflict between the U.S. and Iran.[101][102]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Soleimani's_trip_to_Iraq

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200106-pm-irans-soleimani-was-in-iraq-to-discuss-relations-with-saudi/

 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jan 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama made use of drone strikes even once targeting a US citizen which did not hardly merit much if any talk of war powers. Trump acted no differently in targeting an enemy target. Not much was said about why this guy wan in Iraq ?



"This guy" is an official of Iran, which is a legitimate state.

Why does Comd CENTCOM visit Iraq?  Because he has troops there? Because Iraq is an ally? Because he must conduct defence diplomacy? And all because he is an official of the US Government.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jan 2020)

Yes, Iran is a legitimate state. So was Nazi Germany- the leadership of both countries came to power by application of deadly force and maintained power through the use of domestic terror and repression, to put it mildly.
His purpose in Iraq was perhaps to fight ISIS but probably more important to militarily subvert CENTCOM and fight a continuing war against an arch enemy on third party territory.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yes, Iran is a legitimate state. So was Nazi Germany- the leadership of both countries came to power by application of deadly force and maintained power through the use of domestic terror and repression, to put it mildly.
> His purpose in Iraq was perhaps to fight ISIS but probably more important to militarily subvert CENTCOM *and fight a continuing war against an arch enemy on third party territory*.



The part that I have bolded descibes the actions of the West from the perspective of Iran....

We (the West) can't ascribe to an International Rules Based Order - and benefit from that order for the entire post WWII period of history -  and then decide that those rules don't apply to us, without penalty.  That penalty is in fact the erosion or collapse of the IRBO, which will benefit the two key players who chafe under its restrictions - China and Russia.

Another way to say it is that a state is not illegitimate merely by virtue of not sharing your values, your end-states, or is in fact an adversary.  Equally, an adversary or enemy does not automatically become a terrorist in order to justify extra-judicial responses.

I feel like this discussion may be missing those nuances.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jan 2020)

The actions of CENTCOM are carried out under lawful authority, a status of forces agreement and other @nuances that are entirely absent from the actions of Iran, which I might add is probably the most heavily sanctioned country ion earth. 
I have difficulty believing that the Obama administration would have taken many of the actions that it did without a proper justification under international law let alone domestic law. Giving the dead terrorist a rank when he was alive does not ( or should not) be a justification and shield for him to be in country for every purpose for which he was there.  To be very clear, I’m not defending the actions of Trump and manner and reason in which he makes decisions, but at some point the target was going to be deleted by a sitting US President.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2020)

>"This guy" is an official of Iran, which is a legitimate state.

Yes, so what?  The international order might become more stable, not less, when military action becomes customary against those executing unlawful actions while hiding in the gaps in the international order.  Treat them as unlawful combatants who are legitimate targets of anyone affected by their operations.


----------



## QV (16 Jan 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> "This guy" is an official of Iran, which is a legitimate state.
> 
> Why does Comd CENTCOM visit Iraq?  Because he has troops there? Because Iraq is an ally? Because he must conduct defence diplomacy? And all because he is an official of the US Government.



Do you not think Iran through it's proxies would not take out Comd CENTCOM if they could?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jan 2020)

They may have already assessed that the US system is more ‘fault tolerant’ and that loss of a COCOM such as COMCENTCOM would have far less operational and tactical influence than the US attack on COMIRGCQUDS, and not worth the huge blowback.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jan 2020)

I believe the good sir has qualified that assertion with this:

"Another way to say it is that a state is not illegitimate merely by virtue of not sharing your values, your end-states, or is in fact an adversary.  Equally, an adversary or enemy does not automatically become a terrorist in order to justify extra-judicial responses."

And he's right, although I've yet to ever see a judicial order for a drone strike. The deceased was a terrorist before and during his time in Iran so there wasn't really anything automatic about that, eve if he was wearing several other hats at the same time.  The drone strikes themselves is a policy order based on precedent long used by the US administration, not just President Trump. The revolting part is potential abuse of the policy and authority for a political purpose that may have been meant to serve as a useful distraction from a whole other mess of a domestic nature. 

Killing an adversary by drone strike is both justified and lawful when .... (I don't know the answer but I believe quantifiable evidence of imminent threat to [insert here] is established operationally and not just mere suspicion.)


----------



## FJAG (16 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> ...
> Killing an adversary by drone strike is both justified and lawful when .... (I don't know the answer but I believe quantifiable evidence of imminent threat to [insert here] is established operationally and not just mere suspicion.)



The answer to your question is: Killing an adversary (who is an official of a legitimate nation state) (by the US military) is both justified and lawful when Congress has declared war (or otherwise authorized military action) against that nation state.

Congress has not authorized such actions.

:cheers:


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Giving the dead terrorist a rank when he was alive does not ( or should not) be a justification and shield for him to be in country for every purpose for which he was there.



Calling him a terrorist is not helpful.  Although definitions of terrorism vary, the best include five essential components.  Terrorism:

1. Is an act of violence
2. Is politically motivated
3. Is Intended to intimidate or coerce the public
4. Targets civilians
5. Is conducted by a non-state actor

The last one is important, as it helps bound the concept to be useful.  If terrorism is not confined by its definition to non-state actors, it becomes conflated with state-sanctioned violence.  At this point, the term starts becoming meaningless, because state actors and entities are labelled as terrorists and the next thing you know the bombing of Germany during the second world war is labelled an act of terrorism.  All violence is terrorism (to someone).  If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.

If we apply the definition above, then Soleimini is not a terrorist.  While calling him such may make us feel better, he was the uniformed member of a state's armed forces.  If we stray from this, then politicized histrionics takes the place of rational analysis.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jan 2020)

FJAG: that makes a whole lot of killings in 5he past 12 years unlawful but justified.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Calling him a terrorist is not helpful.  Although definitions of terrorism vary, the best include five essential components.  Terrorism:
> 
> 1. Is an act of violence
> 2. Is politically motivated
> ...




He was a master of asymmetrical warfare and he was part of an organization that was named as a terrorist organization. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7847905/Qassem-Soleimani-terrorist-general-blood-THOUSANDS-hands.html


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2020)

I can call a dog a duck, but just because I say it is, don't make it so.  Naming the Quds Force a terrorist organization is about as useful as naming the United States Marine Corps a terrorist organization.

Now, the Quds Force are definitely drivers of state-sponsored terrorism, but that is a different concept.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jan 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> FJAG: that makes a whole lot of killings in 5he past 12 years unlawful but justified.



If you mean by the US then that's not a correct statement.

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle about what is lawful or unlawful killing in these situations. I'm looking at this from a very narrow focus i.e.: Is the Soleimani targeting within the authority of Trump?

The US has been involved for many years in actions against forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq (as well as Syria). In all cases there have been authorizations for the conflicts (whether through UN self defence justification, NATO consensus etc) in each case with broad authority granted to the President by Congress to take appropriate military action. I therefore consider the US's actions in those countries "lawful" in a general sense.

In the case of Soleimani, we are dealing with a strike on a government agent of the country of Iran for which there has been no Congressional authorization for the use of military force. IMHO that's the President usurping a power which under the Constitution belongs to Congress. 

I'm not arguing one way or the other as to whether it was "justified" or not (I don't have enough facts to determine if this was a true imminent threat that could only be dealt with in this way) nor am I arguing as to whether it was "legal" or not. (I expect that there will be battalions of left and right wing lawyers who will debate this on every news channel for years to come). 

I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war and in order to do that a President needs a Congressional authorization under the terms of the US Constitution. That's quite different from what else has been going on since 9/11. I'm not saying anything more than that.

 :cheers:


----------



## Weinie (17 Jan 2020)

The debate over legalities, semantics, international norms, niceties, LOAC, et al, some of which I have partook of on this forum, has been both fractious and educational, but at the end of the day, I am glad this POS is no longer amongst the living.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> The debate over legalities, semantics, international norms, niceties, LOAC, et al, some of which I have partook of on this forum, has been both fractious and educational, but at the end of the day, I am glad this POS is no longer amongst the living.



That is something I think almost all of us agree on.   :goodpost:


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2020)

>4. Targets civilians
>5. Is conducted by a non-state actor

(5) is unnecessary, but assume it; thus, a state (military) actor targeting civilians (or, in general, disregarding necessity, distinction, and proportionality) is not a terrorist but merely a lawful combatant committing unlawful acts of war.

>I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war and in order to do that a President needs a Congressional authorization under the terms of the US Constitution. 

Pretty much every state action involving violence against another state is an act of war.  People should clarify whether they mean what is vacuously true, or whether they mean "an act of war initiating hostilities - providing casus belli - where none previously existed"; the latter situation is not the one at hand.  It is untrue that the president requires Congressional authorization to commit an act of war; the president has authority to respond not only to attacks but also to imminent attacks.  I haven't come across anyone arguing seriously that the president has no  authority to respond to attacks in general, and Congress acknowledged in the 2001 AUMF "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:".   Deter and prevent cover a lot of ground.  If someone wants to try and argue that there is a gap in the president's authority to respond between attacks by conventional warfare and terrorism (the gap being state forces openly flouting the principles of LOAC while hiding behind "state actor" status), good luck.

To summarize: to commit an act of war in response to an act of war (lawful or not, by people with combatant status or not) without waiting for Congressional authorization is an authority the US president does have.

And there's nothing tying responses tightly to provocations.


----------



## Baz (17 Jan 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That is something I think almost all of us agree on.   :goodpost:



Agreed.

Hypothetical question: what would have been the fallout of the USSR deliberately and openly targetting and killing the CIA Pakistan chief of station visiting Afghanistan in the mid 80s, during the US effort to support Iskamic efforts against the USSR?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jan 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Hypothetical question: what would have been the fallout of the USSR deliberately and openly targetting and killing the CIA Pakistan chief of station visiting Afghanistan in the mid 80s, during the US effort to support Iskamic efforts against the USSR?



It is a useful thought experiment. Given that both the US and USSR were nuclear powers, I do not believe it would have led to war. It would likely have been diplomatically protested and led to increased western sanctions against the USSR.

Interestingly, I also think it may have led to the US quietly backing away from supporting Afghan Mujhadeen forces and finding another avenue to discomfort the Soviets.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm merely pointing out that when you blow up the general of a nation state that you are not at war with then you are in fact committing an act of war.



... and we have just walked through a particular kind of 'looking glass' so, if we haven't already done so, the USA and everyone who Iran (and their allies) views as an American ally had better up our security game to be ready for whatever comes next.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2020)

Iran was more or less winning the asymmetrical fight, they were using proxies, mostly with poor Afghans and others to fight and die for a pittance, their Iranian leaders more or less safe. By this action the US has said, that your no longer safe outside your borders, making Command and Control of their proxies far more difficult and dangerous. Coupled with mounting sanctions, raising domestic issues, Iran may find it difficult to both lead and pay for these proxies, meaning they won't operate with a common goal. As long as Trump is willing to offer a political solution to the Iranian leadership, coupled with an aggressive response posture and continued sanctions, we may very well see meaningful change within the power structures of Iran. What I have found interesting is how quickly the Clerics and the government blamed the IRGC for both the shooting the airliner down and the coverup of the blunder. They know the people want blood and are forcing the IRGC to put up it's own sacrificial goats in order to save the Government/clerics from the wrath. I suspect there are many palace intrigues going on and lot of sleepless nights for the leadership. If Trump gets re-elected, they are going to be very worried.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2020)

What's the high risk, exactly?


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What's the high risk, exactly?



Collateral damage vs contained?   :dunno:


----------



## Baz (17 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What's the high risk, exactly?



That it blows up in our face.  It goes from terrorism, which is a pin prick, to state on state conflict involving Russia, which is an axe in comparison.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> That it blows up in our face.  It goes from terrorism, which is a pin prick, to state on state conflict involving Russia, which is an axe in comparison.



Not so sure Russia would choose to get into a direct conflict with the US on behalf of Iran, China might, but likley only if the flow of oil to her is threatened and quiet sideline diplomacy can ease that concern. There is no chance of an invasion of Iran, so the country itself is not threatened and likely the US would slowly escalate the attacks and currently Iran could not endure to many without massive problems internally. The non-IRGC military might decide not to get involved in order to protect it's assets from destruction and might be secretly happy to have the IRGC taken apart by US airstrikes. If the US focuses retaliation purely on the IRGC, then the other power factions in Iran might see it as something the IRGC brought upon itself and try to wrestle power from them to safeguard the country. Any attacks should also be supported with secret diplomacy moves to non-IRGC power brokers to help an internal move to limit the Clerics and IRGC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jan 2020)

>state on state conflict involving Russia

Truly?

Conflict costs money.  Even at peace, Iran needs to sell oil more than the purchasers need to buy that oil; Iran's need is amplified if conflict escalates.  Most of the purchasers nevertheless would be disgruntled if Iran elected to slit its own throat, close the gulf, and grind to a halt.

Suppose Iran is irrevocably stupid and closes the gulf while entering into a conventional war.  Lacking hard cash flows and a military-industrial complex of its own, Iran will rapidly deplete its major equipment and ammunition and its ability to buy more.  Any country coming to Iran's aid - and prolonging the oil crunch - will be looked upon very disfavourably by the purchasers of gulf oil.  I doubt any nation capable of making a difference will supply its own hard cash or stockpiles of equipment and ammunition to stretch out an unpopular war.

Suppose Iran is a bit smarter, and declares the gulf "open" provided no-one attacks its terminal facilities, while entering into a conventional war.  What is it supposed to do that will attract anyone's interest, other than invade a neighbour and grind down its military forces to no useful purpose?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2020)

Cut out a lot of the chaff dealing with the US Presidency, and put it where it belongs in the Politics subforum.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Baz (18 Jan 2020)

Baz said:
			
		

> That it blows up in our face.  It goes from terrorism, which is a pin prick, to state on state conflict involving Russia, which is an axe in comparison.



Let me be less specific.  Trump's actions, in my view, carry more risk because of third order effects and unintended consequences.  It seems, to me, this administration does not consider or maybe even understand that.  There seems to be a segment of the US voters, who are the only ones that matter to his election, that feel the same way.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jan 2020)

There is a universe of possibilities from actions taken or not taken.  A critic of a bold response will worry about escalation by angry foes; a critic of a weak response will worry about escalation by emboldened foes.  What they share in common is vague worries.

>this administration does not consider or maybe even understand that.

That is most likely true of Trump, and unlikely to be true of the entire administration.  What we have been shown, repeatedly, is that people in the administration have been willing to slow walk or ignore instructions borne of Trump's worst impulses and that Trump has a short attention span.

What is more likely: that response options pop into Trump's head and he commands one or more to happen, or that lists of considered options are presented to Trump by people who have thought about them?


----------



## brihard (18 Jan 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There is a universe of possibilities from actions taken or not taken.  A critic of a bold response will worry about escalation by angry foes; a critic of a weak response will worry about escalation by emboldened foes.  What they share in common is vague worries.
> 
> >this administration does not consider or maybe even understand that.
> 
> ...



Thing is he has a penchant for ignoring, insulting, and ultimately firing those people. Those who attempt to curb Trump's excesses typically are not destined for long and fruitful careers in his administration. The number of quality or at least experienced individuals he has driven out is alarming. He is at best a sometimes, briefly, captive audience to experience and insight- barely influenced by it, and certainly not at all deferential to true expertise in fields where he lacks even a rudimentary grasp. We see time and again that he tries to force things into a nice comfortable for-profit corporate box in his mind. Anything outside of that context, he seems to struggle with and have little to no time for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We see time and again that he tries to force things into a nice comfortable for-profit corporate box in his mind. Anything outside of that context, he seems to struggle with and have little to no time for.



I think that's a pretty accurate statement, although I think for his political opponents, the only thing that changes is the box they are in.


----------



## quadrapiper (19 Jan 2020)

For the sake of discussion, other than not discomfiting the Saudis (who are behind far more pervasive and geographically distributed asymmetrical misery) and (potentially) the Israelis (who can a) take care of themselves, and b) aren't economically significant), what is the long-term practical interest in containing Iranian interests? Their crude's as good as any.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jan 2020)

Some people might want to contain their interests.  Some just want them to stop being a state sponsor of terror.  Imagine if Iran were just like most other countries and wasn't stirring up shit among its neighbours.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jan 2020)

Same arguments could be applied to the House of Saud.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Same arguments could be applied to the House of Saud.



The Iranians are more competent at it and more devious. Iran could be a real economic power in the region if run by anyone other than the Clerics and IRGC.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jan 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Iranians are more competent at it and more devious. Iran could be a real economic power in the region if run by anyone other than the Clerics and IRGC.



The Saudi's are more subtle. They have been singularly responsible for the spread of Sunni Wahhabism throughout the world through the massive infusion of cash for the building of mosques and fundamentalist Islamic schools. I'm only guessing here but I would expect that as many allied servicemen were killed or injured in Afghanistan by Sunni fundamentalist Taliban (and their ilk) who were indoctrinated in Saudi funded schools in Pakistan as were by Shi'ite, Iran inspired ones in Iraq. But then again, it's not really a competition. Or is it?

 :worms:


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jan 2020)

>Same arguments could be applied to the House of Saud.

Yes,  and probably a few other countries.  Add them all to the list.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The Saudi's are more subtle. They have been singularly responsible for the spread of Sunni Wahhabism throughout the world through the massive infusion of cash for the building of mosques and fundamentalist Islamic schools. I'm only guessing here but I would expect that as many allied servicemen were killed or injured in Afghanistan by Sunni fundamentalist Taliban (and their ilk) who were indoctrinated in Saudi funded schools in Pakistan as were by Shi'ite, Iran inspired ones in Iraq. But then again, it's not really a competition. Or is it?
> 
> :worms:



The Sunni world is much bigger than the Shia world and Iran never had the cash that the Gulf States had. otherwise the 12th Iman types would be doing the same.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2020)

An update from the Institute for the Study of War ....


> _*Warning Intelligence Update: Iran Increases Pressure on U.S. Forces in Iraq*_
> 
> _*Key Takeaway: *_Iran is organizing a new effort to increase political and military pressure against U.S. forces in an effort to compel an American withdrawal from Iraq. Iran’s proxy militia groups are working with Iraqi nationalist Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to organize a “million strong march” on January 24 to oppose U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Sadr’s support lends additional credibility to the march and may enable Iran’s proxies to generate a more significant protest than they otherwise would be able to achieve. Iran is also attempting to coalesce its lethal Iraqi proxy militias, and potentially Sadr, into a more unified military force to target U.S. forces in the region. Iran faces some obstacles in doing so, but the formation of an anti-U.S. Iraqi resistance front poses a significant threat, even in its preliminary stages of organization ...


More @ link.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2021)

Meanwhile back to the important boring bits. How the Iraqs stabilize their grid and make life better for the average person will determine future outcomes.








						Amid Iranian gas shortage, Iraq searches for alternatives
					

Iran's dilapidated gas infrastructure has limited its transfers to Iraq, adding to Iraq's own energy crisis.




					www.al-monitor.com


----------



## quadrapiper (1 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Some people might want to contain their interests.  Some just want them to stop being a state sponsor of terror.  Imagine if Iran were just like most other countries and wasn't stirring up shit among its neighbours.


Imagine if the Saudis were content to enjoy their enormous wealth, the prestige of having Mecca on their soil, and so on, and stop spreading a destabilizing creed well beyond their own borders.

Without getting too deeply into the comparison, it seems loosely comparable to Russia and China: Iran seems dead-set on securing itself a stable place in the region, and the problems it causes are regional in nature, while the Saudis are slightly better neighbours, but are much more ambitious in spreading their influence.

Let the Iranians spread a bit, kick in the doors of some of their more shambolic neighbours, put some pressure on Israel, and give the Saudis something to worry about. Bet whatever emerged would be less of a breeding ground for things like ISIS.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2021)

Let the Americans spread a bit, kick in the doors of some of their more shambolic neighbours, put some pressure on Europe, and give the South Americans something to worry about.

Bad Saudi behaviour doesn't excuse bad Iranian behaviour.


----------



## quadrapiper (3 Aug 2021)

Nope! They're both awful, currently, though Iran is arguably less so. So either the whole region needs sanctions and interventions, or none do: save the effort, buy the region's one major export from whoever's selling, and quit worrying about _which _pack of theocrats gets the upper hand. Might encourage the Saudis to stop sticking their nose outside their borders, and thus save the world a great deal of pain.


----------

