General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's Rationale for Killing Soleimani Is Falling Apart
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/trump-soleimani-iran-lying-threat-bombing-intelligence.htmlTrumps Rationale for Killing Soleimani Is Falling Apart
By Jonathan Chait
Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Why did the United States kill Iranian general Qasem Soleimani? President Trump, in remarks to the nation the morning after the attack, gave a clear rationale. Soleimani was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.
That information has not been made public. But the glimpses behind the curtain have not inspired confidence that Trumps story is on the level.
The most damning assessment is indirect. When the administration shared its intelligence with select members of Congress, many of them came away unimpressed, if not outright disgusted. Rep. Gerry Connolly described the presentation as sophomoric and utterly unconvincing. Even Republican Senator Mike Lee, heretofore an unquestioning Trump supporter, called it the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, hes seen in the nine years [hes] been here. This is the equivalent of a person who owns 14 house cats reporting that they walked out of the theater halfway through Cats.
Exactly what the administration said, or failed to say, remains classified. But the administrations public explanations have hardly added clarity. Trumps initial remarks did not mention any new threat to a U.S. embassy. The next day, he said, We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy, presumably in Baghdad. Last night, at a rally in Toledo, he expanded the threat to embassies, multiple. In a new interview with Fox News, he has specified the threat as being to four embassies. Oddly, these details seem not to have been included in the briefing to Congress, which raises the question of why information is too classified for members of the U.S. government, but low-level enough to share with the Fox News audience.
A senior administration official and a senior defense official tell the Post they were only aware of vague intelligence about a plot against the embassy in Baghdad and that the information did not suggest a fully formed plot. Both sources denied any awareness of threats against multiple embassies.
Other ancillary details have made the case look more questionable still. Trump reportedly told associates he acted in part to placate Republican Senators whose support he needed to shape the Senate impeachment trial. The Washington Post reports today that, on the same day as the Soleimani strike, another American mission attempted, but failed, to take out a different Iranian commander in Yemen, where Iran is involved in a civil war. This seems like a strange coincidence if the second target was also linked to an imminent threat to the U.S. This suggests a mission with a longer planning horizon and a larger objective, and it really does call into question why there was an attempt to explain this publicly on the basis of an imminent threat, Iran scholar Suzanne Maloney told the Post.
And of course Trump lies all the time, about everything. He specifically lies about the U.S. intelligence community, the conclusions of which he habitually disregards when it suits his purpose. Last year, he dismissed U.S. intelligence that found Iran was abiding the terms of the nuclear deal. So the notion Trump would mislead the country about Iran-related intelligence again hardly seems far-fetched.
It is probably true that Soleimani was linked to plans that posed some kind of threat to the United States at some point. Soleimani was indeed a very dangerous and aggressive figure. But Trumps claim that he had to be killed right away in order to save American lives is not one that should be taken at face value.
This post has been updated.
nature-lover
(1,471 posts)None of this adds up.
Firestorm49
(4,037 posts)Definition of imminent: About to happen. Again, about to happen.
As usual, unable to provide evidence is the follow up.
First, the world is better off without without Soleimani.
Secondly, far too many Americans bought this line of BS.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's one general in one army. He's not a terrorist like OBL was. If Iran was really sending him to attack us, as a general, he'd have brought an army. The rest of the Quds Force still exists. It's like Dotard would claim victory for killing the General because that meant the rest of the army would stand down as promotions are impossible. Is he going to claim victory as the army moves in? Shades of the Iraqi Information Minister, Baghdad Bob.
Kid Berwyn
(15,006 posts)Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said (my italics).
Source: https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/the-wall-street-journal-accidentally-reveals-the-unbearable-truth-about-suleimanis-assassination/
Wounded Bear
(58,755 posts)That's usually all he needs to make it to the next distraction.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)NOW
lark
(23,179 posts)RW neocons were considering deserting him so he did this, their dream of attacking Iran, so they would stand by him in the impeachment and keep away any and all relevant information/witnesses.
corrected typo
malaise
(269,236 posts)I'm shocked I tell you - shocked!
ProfessorGAC
(65,282 posts)The general was extremely unlikely to be the one to personally carrying out said attacks.
If intelligence says they were imminent, the plans were complete, targets selected, assignments fixed, and timetable set.
So, killing one guy wouldn't stop an attack anyway.
Given "imminent" and the fact that no attack has happened, the excuse is fabricated.
And, if it happens in a month or 2, then it wasn't imminent.
Either way, there could not have been an attack that was imminent.
Rorey
(8,445 posts)-45's followers fail to grasp the fact that there was someone ready to step in to fill the role that Soleimani held. They obviously equate it to taking out the queen in an ant colony.
IronLionZion
(45,579 posts)and stop trying to distract everyone
pangaia
(24,324 posts)nothing he says has any meaning....
world wide wally
(21,757 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,467 posts)Thanks for the thread babylonsister.
lame54
(35,332 posts)moondust
(20,017 posts)You can do whatever you want and then cobble together any justification you like that serves your interest after it's over.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to stop them. Does he think generals cannot be replaced? The attacks will still be planned.
Also where is his proof that any attack was planned at all? What proof that this particular individual was the head planner?
Dotard wants to be Obama so bad. His supporters claim this is like taking out OBL. It's not. We knew what OBL had done and admitted to doing and did do, not just plan, for 10 years.