World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
US Middle East Policy - Success? Failure? Something else?
Just to show I am still alive, I regard it as a failure by and large, although there is no doubt it earns the US big bucks by selling arms to Saudi. Which, I suppose, raises the first question for discussion: what comprises success? If it is to complete successfully its objectives, and if its sole objective was to sell arms to the Saudis, then it is a howling success. So, in terms of strategy, what are the objectives?And, to go off the track in post no 2. Happy New Year All.
Quick and dirty.We start with a bunch of God botherers who have spent the last millennium slaughtering each other because their "Prophet" didn't name an heir. Suggesting that it slipped Allah's mind would take us into kill the infidel territory, so I guess Allah wants them to murder each other.
Later on, the Ottoman's backed the wrong horse in the "Great War". This bad idea lead to their collapse. I don't know why the Sultan thought that backing his family's oldest enemies was a good idea. Especially, when he could have just grabbed the crayons and colored, while the Europeans f***ed each other over on a whole new level. But jump in he did, and when his empire got gone, the Brits grabbed his crayons and started drawing lines. Because those imaginary straight lines worked so well in Africa.
It was at about this time that the most valuable resource in the history of our species was found beneath the sands. The Brits got in early, but the US managed to work out a deal with the Saud to do business in US dollars. The Petro-Dollar was born, and the US ended up propping up the House of Saud to continue reaping the rewards of being the global currency.
Then Israel happened. The natives got restless, and bad decisions were made. This all flared into the current BS when some Saudis hijacked three airplanes.
In summary, everything about the Middle East is the result of bad decisions.
Ian wrote, copy-pasted from another thread: "First, let us be clear what a contractor usually is: a mercenary, a private enterprise soldier. In an earlier post you asked me what the NZ government would do. It is interesting because in the "silly season" for newspapers here, we have had a run of articles about specific NZ "contractors". The position of the NZ government is clear: You are there for the money, you know the risks, and you are not operating on behalf of the NZ government. Accordingly, you are on your own. That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable policy.
The US may have warned about what would happen regarding attacks on its forces, but mercenaries? Who are these guys working for and what are they doing? Some have been known to be rather trigger-happy so is the US now going to take revenge on behalf of murderers?
What bothers me is the principle of reciprocity - Americans would never let someone else do that on their soil so why should they do it on someone else's? I also dislike the lack of justice in that in these remote killings, they may or may not get their target, but they certainly get a lot of innocents. Yes, innocents can suffer in a war, but is this a war in Iraq? The militia that was attacked is a legitimate Iraqi militia. We don't know who did what, but the proper procedure is to arrest and charge the perpetrator and not to go over the top of the government and kill some number who they accuse. her eis no place for the lynch mob mentality. If they can't arrest, at least charge and provide the evidence that the accused actually was the one who did it. If you don't want to do that, then mercenaries take their chances, or get out of the country. It is not yours."
Ian, I understand that you legitimize killing Americans and call those who do it "innocent". I believe most of the members here won't buy this shit. "Innocent" won't fire 30 rockets on a legit US base (and I'm sure they have all consents and verification for being there). CNN is hardly a Trump TV: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/po...
What, a string of 10 rocket attacks within just 2 months?!! I'm surprised the US was that patient.
You have no idea who the civilian contractor was, but you suggest we assume he's a mercenary (which he at least as likely - not) and it's fine to kill him. But it's not!
Iraq is rocked by s surge of civil unrest and official Iraqi authorities are much less capable than militias that aren't under government's control. Not sure about their "legitimacy", that you claim exist. However, as we read the US sought security from the local authorities.
Maybe if a US base was attacked in a country with a strong grip on what's happening inside it, it was practical to rely on local authorities to investigate and bring to justice perpetrators, but not in the places where they are incapable. I say don't be a sucker, defend yourself and desirably - build deterrence.
I guess according to your logic, Obama should've just called Pakistani government and ask to capture and deliver to the US, osama bin laden, rather than sending SEALs, and they would've of course delivered. Keep dreaming..
J. wrote: "Then Israel happened. The natives got restless, and bad decisions were made..."Israel has a conflict with Palestinians, hopefully to be resolved at some stage and has very little to do with most of restlessness elsewhere around ME. After a couple of wars Israel has peace treaties with Egypt & Jordan and strengthening relations with the Gulf.
Not sure anyone should care about "restlessness", just don't let them get into position to be able to threaten the world.
As a general note - if you want to blame yourself for what "locals", "natives", hostile regimes do - go ahead, fine with me. They are all "innocent, peaceful, lofty, deprived" and so on and have nothing to do with the violence that savage Brits and Americans cause them do :)
Nik,How did you get,
"...They are all "innocent, peaceful, lofty, deprived" and so on and have nothing to do with the violence that savage Brits and Americans cause them [to] do",
when I posted,
"We start with a bunch of God botherers who have spent the last millennium slaughtering each other because their "Prophet" didn't name an heir. Suggesting that it slipped Allah's mind would take us into kill the infidel territory, so I guess Allah wants them to murder each other..."
BTW, we have a perfect thread where we can confess, self-flagellate, implore forgiveness and make amends with ISIS and others: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
J. wrote: "Nik,How did you get,
"...They are all "innocent, peaceful, lofty, deprived" and so on and have nothing to do with the violence that savage Brits and Americans cause them [to] do",
when I poste..."
Pls, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed you put responsibility on the UK and the US for "bad decisions", which you view as the prime sin and source for "everything about ME".
If peoples manage to make peace and find solutions after devastating wars like those that raged in Europe and Asia, maybe ME nations could do more for peaceful co-existence, much more, if that were their desire
People were making bad decisions in the ME before Abraham thought, "Well, if Sarah wants me to 'know' Hagar, then who am I to question it." The UK and the US are just the most recent. If there were no oil in the ME, the power bases would be different, but they would still be killing each other over stupidity.
Yeah, that was a pivotal junction too, if to attribute some historicity to religious scripts :) errare humanum estHave to remind to refrain from alluding to sexual themes and using profanity, as historically we are a group open to minors as well
Fair enough, the profane words have been edited from my last post.Abraham's bad decision is one of the major factors in the nightmare that is the ME. Whether he was real or not, both the Arabs and Israelis believe he was. Further, each side believes that they are the legitimate heirs, and the other side are usurpers. Can you show me any other group of related faiths that are as fratricidal as the Abrahamic religions?
Won't vouch for Arabs, but among Israelis there is quite a large segment of secular population, some fairly anti-religious.I don't think there is an inherent hatred or a religious rivalry. There are lots of friendly interpersonal relations. It's more, in my eyes, like an inheritance dispute btw siblings - how to divide parents' house. Can be solved amicably, but sometimes deteriorates into bitter discourse and lengthy litigations
Nik wrote: "Ian, I understand that you legitimize killing Americans and call those who do it "innocent". I believe most of the members here won't buy this shit. "Innocent" won't fire 30 rockets on a legit US b..."Nik, I never said I legitimize killing Americans, and I have no idea where you got that from. Now, let us look at your link, where we see:
"The US is now trying to determine who was responsible for the attack, officials said. The US has so far not disclosed the identity of the contractor killed, or the company they worked for. Iraqi security forces are leading the response and investigation, Caggins said."
They don't know who did it, but hey, let's kill some Iraqis, and Syrians. That is what I object to. Killing innocents as reprisals to keep the opposition down. Amongst other reasons, such as ordinary humanity, it just does not work. I saw TV clips of both Pompeo and Trump saying Iran was considered to be responsible and the objective was to deter Iranian sympathisers. In short, the motivation was as much political as anything.
The American was killed at Kirkuk, which is not that far away from where the remains of ISIS are. We know very little about the raid and apparently the CNN news source first said it was a mortar attack, and then they said it was Katyusha rockets. Details are thin, but with the information we have, five bombing raids, including into Syria could not conceivably be to get the guilty. Leaving aside the fact they had no idea who was guilty, someone in another country was hardly a good suspect.
Contrary to what you believe, I fully approve of the raid that got bin Laden. Now, the question is, why did SEALs do that, as opposed to a bombing raid that would be much easier, or even a drone strike? The simple answer, to me, is that the US wanted to be sure they got the right guy. I agree that waiting for the Pakistanis to do it would be impractical so while it was of doubtful legality, at least it was a proper military act against the guilty. The bombing raids against five Shiite "bases" (we have no real answer yet as to what the targets were) were simply reprisals: you kill ours, we kill more of yours. The sort of thing that happened at Lidice, the sort of thing they hanged Germans for at the end of the war.
As for the contractor, if he was not a mercenary, what was he? If he were a charitable worker, I bet he would not have been labelled as a contractor. If he were working for a legitimate Iraqi organization, doing something like rebuilding something, I bet that would have been announced. The fact nobody wants to say who he was, to my mind, makes the odds very strongly in favour of his being a mercenary. The alternative is poor reporting, which I guess is possible, but unlikely because the Americans would know who he was.
To summarise, I am against reprisal killing. Getting the true guilty is fine, but just killing a number is not. I am against mercenaries with guns roaming around uncontrolled in someone else's country. I am against the politics of proxy wars. I am also sympathetic to the guys that effectively destroyed the ISIS Caliphate because they were a murderous bunch.
As for J's comments, I think the black stuff below the sands is the prime agent that has ignited various forms of greed and violence. If the deserts were empty of value, yes they would still be killing each other, but the West would not be involved.
Ian,The DOD uses civilian contractors for many of the noncombat support functions on US bases (ie. catering, janitorial services, construction, etc...). Also, please note that under US law neither the DOD nor the State Department can release the names of casualties until after the next of kin have been notified. If you had a close family member who took a job working in a cafeteria at a base, would you want to find out about their death from CNN? Please have a care for the next of kin before making conspiratorial claims.
J.,Fair enough that names are withheld until relatives are told, but the original killing was some time ago and I would have thought they would have been told by now. OK, maybe the relatives are hard to contact.
Yes, it could have been a janitor or a cook, although I thought the army tended to do those jobs in the more advanced positions (because of the risk, and because in the event of an attack, even the cooks would have basic training and have an easier chance of taking the right evasive measures. Sure, they could still be unlucky, but I am surprised that the army would have private citizens in such an advanced position base.
I also reject conspiratorial. I am merely analysing and trying to draw some conclusions, including options for what happened that at least provide some sort of understanding for what could have happened. If we wait for the whole story come out, I suspect we shall be waiting a very long time.
Ian wrote: "Nik, I never said I legitimize killing Americans, and I have no idea where you got that from. ..."I'll show you, here:
"You are there for the money, you know the risks, and you are not operating on behalf of the NZ government. Accordingly, you are on your own. That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable policy.
The US may have warned about what would happen regarding attacks on its forces, but mercenaries? Who are these guys working for and what are they doing? Some have been known to be rather trigger-happy so is the US now going to take revenge on behalf of murderers?"
You try to paint the victim as a mercenary and go as far as to hint he might be a "murderer" and reading what you wrote how else can you interpret that if not legitimizing killing him? I'm not talking already about hearing at least a word of condemnation or condolences for an innocent victim of the rocket attack.
Now about mercenaries. In our army civilian contractors are specialists doing civilian jobs for the army as the employer, ranging from plumber to doctor. Never a combat or even fighting position.
I see no reason whatsoever to keep mercenaries together with US army soldiers, which are professional army, i.e. getting paid for what they do anyway. It just complicates the matters immensely with all the POW conventions, norms, etc.
Mercenaries, would be those who have no official governmental umbrella, thus all foreigners that fight in Ukraine, either for or against it, as private citizens would be mercenaries.
I'm fairly confident, that your little theory is completely erroneous and come out of the bias that whatever Americans do they are the bad guys in the ME.
Moreover, you hurry to announce innocent Shiites killed. How do you know? Being Shiites is irrelevant, unless of course you want to allege that the US is involved in a religious cleansing, which they are not.
You know nothing about, who's behind the attack on the US bases, but you hurry to claim them "innocent", implying you know more than the US intelligence of who's acting against Americans in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata%27...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Mah...
I trust the US might have a little bit of knowledge about their local adversaries and these guys were hardly concerned with minimal casualties when firing 30 rockets into the US army base. They would kill as much as possible, have no doubt about it.
The best defense is deterrence, which was apparently eroded as the attacks grew ballsier, so a heavy blow to an organization considered terrorist anyway, might restore at least some of it.
I guess you prefer when parties attack incognito, unannounced and not taking responsibility, then you can claim "where is the proof", "how do we know" and so on, and whenever the most obvious support the US act, you'd go out of your way to undermine the obvious.
If Kata'ib Hezbollah is behind the rocket attack of the US base, will you concede that the US retaliation was proper and justified?
Nik, you did not show me that I said it was "legitimate"; I tried to say it was understandable. If foreign soldiers are occupying your country, are you trying to say the locals should simply accept that? If they do anything to try and move you it is terrorism? You would accept that the Jews tried to get the British to move by blowing things up. Is that terrorism or "legitimate" moves? How about the American war of independence, which may have been the first sign of guerilla tactics? If you accept that the Irgun was legitimately blowing stuff up is there a double standard here?
Now, why did I think the contractor could be a mercenary? First, the story I heard when it first came out implied that the attack was aimed at the contractor and his employer. Admittedly, I did not expect that the employer would be the US army, so maybe I was wrong there and the contractor was just an accidental case of wrong place, wrong time. A lot was made of "contractor" and I can't see why it was not stated to be an army employee, but it may well be that I got this wrong. We shall see.
How do I know they were Shiites? Because a statement from the Iraqi Prime Minster said so. How do I know they were innocent? At least some were because there were five bombing raids over two countries. And of course, I saw Pompeo, in a clip, state they were dealing with Iranian-backed militias, so they were hardly likely to be Sunnis.
Why do you think bombing someone is going to calm the situation? I agree that killing the people who are attacking you is quite legitimate, but if this was a US military base, they presumably knew where the rockets came from - if they were rockets - so why not take action against the attackers? I know the answer to that is we have no real idea exactly what happened. There is usually a defence against rocket attacks, and a US base should be as technically advanced as any, but I assume there was none. I also guess we won't find out.
This thread started out asking whether the US Middle East Policy was a success or failure. In post number two I asked, "So, in terms of strategy, what are the objectives?" So far, nobody has come up with their interpretation of what the US strategy is, or what their objectives are. Come on - someone must have some idea?
1.) Secure oil supply2.) Eliminate threats to the security of the US and it's allies
3.) Promote Western ideals
Ian wrote: "If foreign soldiers are occupying your country, are you trying to say the locals should simply accept that? If they do anything to try and move you it is terrorism?..."Ian, the US WAS occupying, but it's not anymore and for years now. The army is there with the consent of the Iraqi government. If they withdraw the consent, we'll see what the US does. No one said Iraqi army defending (whatever lousy performance that was) against the coalition under Saddam was terrorists. Militias that are not subordinate to the government and who specifically act against the US can be terrorist and as far as I understand some of them are exactly viewed as such.
Ian wrote: "If you accept that the Irgun was legitimately blowing stuff up is there a double standard here?..."
We had this discussion somewhere. Some Jewish liberation movements used guerrilla tactics, but what's important here, is that the nation rejected these tactics and methods, and quoting from Wikipedia: "The Israeli government, in September 1948, acting in response to the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, outlawed the Irgun and Lehi groups, declaring them terrorist organizations under the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#I...
Moreover, the Jewish terrorism is dealt with as exactly such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_...
Unlike other regimes that encourage, train and sponsor so-called martyrs to kill as many civilians as they can.
Ian wrote: "I heard when it first came out implied that the attack was aimed at the contractor and his employer..."
Shooting 30 rockets, I imagine they went after maximum casualties...
Ian wrote: "How do I know they were Shiites?..."
It's simply irrelevant, because they were targeted not because of their religious affiliation.
Ian wrote: "How do I know they were innocent? At least some were because there were five bombing raids over two countries...."
First of all, you don't, you assume and that's not knowledge. Secondly, you don't need to wait that each one of them will attack an American target to go after them. If they are members of the organization that acts against the US, they are rivals. Moreover, I'd say if the US discovered the preparation of the attack or had an intelligence tip-off and acted first killing every one of those who was in the midst of preparation to fire rockets, it would be perfectly OK by any standard!
Ian wrote: "Why do you think bombing someone is going to calm the situation?"
Why should the US be concerned with whether it calms the situ or not? It should be concerned with punishing those who started and building deterrence so it won't happen again. They asked the Iraqi government to rein militias in. Let the government care for calm and prosperity.
Ian wrote: "This thread started out asking whether the US Middle East Policy was a success or failure. In post number two I asked, "So, in terms of strategy, what are the objectives?" So far, nobody has come u..."That's an interesting theme per se. I guess some objectives may vary under different administrations.
What is pretty obvious here is that the US in general intends to lessen its involvement in local affairs and this is certainly understandable.
The grandstanding has historic roots: the USSR was supporting Arabs, while the US - Israel, as the only democracy in the ME. Just like in every other part of the globe, where both superpowers were either training and bankrolling or openly supporting rival groups, like in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola and other locations.
After the big bang of the USSR that stalled and largely disabled support of overseas operations, incl. Cuba, N. Korea, Mongolia, Arab states and other allies, the US became dominant in ME as the only major player, which showed willingness to intervene militarily (Kuwait) and behind which some Arab countries aligned.
Not any more. Russia is back and big time. Moreover, if Iraq falls into Iran's orbit (which pretty much already happened), that would be quite an unfortunate result for the US Iraq campaign.
If I summarize current objectives and interests of the US:
1) To prevent Iran from going nuclear, ballistic and spreading its radical Islam influence in the area.
2) To support and maintain its allies: Israel, Saudi Arabia, others and that also involves a steady flow of multi-billion defense sales.
3) To maintain influence over OPEC - the major oil cartel.
4) To maintain regional influence, desirably without being involved in military conflicts.
As we can see no void is left. Wherever the US pulls back, Russia or China are there the morning after, expanding rapidly their influence. But the US can be self-centered, it's there business after all.
Nik, The US is an occupying power because it acts independently of the Iraqi government, and it is not subject to Iraqi laws. Think of France during WW 2; the German army was there with the consent of the Vichy government but nobody would describe it as anything but an occupying force.As to why I said they were Shiites, you asked "How do I know?" As to whether they were innocent, two such bases were in another country, so hardly likely to be perpetrators. The US later said they struck Hezbollah arms deposits and command and control centres, which means the best involvement the US could supply was "suspected".
Why should the US be concerned about whether the situation is calmed? Then what the hell is it there for? Much of what your justification seems to be that it is correct to suppress people who could be considered influenced by Iran. If that is it, then the US military is there as an occupying power because it is trying to determine the foreign policy of Iraq by force of arms.
Finally, on the issue of the contractor, I cannot find any further information on what he was doing there, and there has been six days silence on the matter. I don't know whether that is simple slack reporting, the matter is considered of little interest or what, but it seems there is unlikely to be further information. As for contractors, it is difficult to get figures, but up to 2018 (Nov) Brown Universit reports that 7800 contractors have been killed. I saw a Wikipedia article that showed in the first decade following the Bush invasion, about half the contractors killed were on the circuit; the next most common victims were drivers.
Regarding Nik's US objectives:1 a. "To prevent Iran from going nuclear, ballistic". I regard this as a fail, or at best, clumsily executed, in part because this objective got tangled with (1 b). The UN inspectors were clear that Iran was complying with the deal and there appears to be no evidence to the contrary.
1 b. "To prevent Iran from spreading its radical Islam influence in the area." I regard this as a fail as well. Part of the difficulty here is that the Iranian supported militias, etc, did all the groundwork in booting ISIS out, so that will have given Iran recognition. I don't know how the US could improve things, though, since the troubles seem to be mainly Sunni/Shia conflict. I don't think there is an answer that has any chance of working other than trying to bring Iran back into the peaceful fold. Good luck with that right now.
2. "To support and maintain its allies: Israel, Saudi Arabia, others and that also involves a steady flow of multi-billion defense sales." That would seem to be an unqualified success.
3. "To maintain influence over OPEC - the major oil cartel." I am not sure what you mean here. The US is now a major oil exporter, and I suspect the cartel aspect has had its time in the sun. I suppose by sanctioning Iran and refusing to refine Venezuelan heavy crude, it is helping maintain the oil price.
4. "To maintain regional influence, desirably without being involved in military conflicts." Not sure of this one. I think Russia and China are growing their influence, and the US seems to be continually involved in military aspects in the region.
I am not sure there is a coherent strategy here, other than for (2), because I cannot see how what it is doing will achieve the desired goals. I think objective (3) is more or less redundant anyway since the US is fracking furiously..
Regarding the objective's noted by J., I think (1), securing the oil supply is redundant fr the reasons outlined in my response to Nik. Providing security to Israel and Saudis is definitely an unqualified success. Whether it could be managed to give more stability to the remaining region is another question.As for promoting Western ideals, I don't think that is at all successful, but I suppose you could respond saying it is too early to tell.
And now a major escalation from US Killing an Iranian general whilst on a trip to Iraq.
Just to expand a little on what Philip just announced:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/0...
He's the same caliber as Al Baghdadi and was responsible for Iran's foreign operations, heading Quds brigades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force
Expecting Ian, of course, to suggest Iran and Iran-backed Iraqi militias keep utmost restraint to ensure calm and reduction of tensions in the region.
Ian wrote: "Nik, The US is an occupying power because it acts independently of the Iraqi government, and it is not subject to Iraqi laws. Think of France during WW 2; the German army was there with the consent..."Ian, officially the US is not an occupying force. If you use criteria of independence of government and being not subject to Iraqi laws, then Iran's militias are the occupying force too. And here are the anti-Iran protests that support this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_p... And note who kills the protesters
Ian wrote: "Then what the hell is it there for?..."
Not for policing Iraq, of course, as they are not an occupying force anymore, but for its own operational needs, be them to fight ISIS or confront Iran's dangerous activities.
Ian wrote: "Finally, on the issue of the contractor, I cannot find any further information on what he was doing there, and there has been six days silence on the matter...."
You know, you can still offer condolences
Ian wrote: "Regarding Nik's US objectives:1 a. "To prevent Iran from going nuclear, ballistic". I regard this as a fail, or at best, clumsily executed, in part because this objective got tangled with (1 b). ..."
Ian, it's too early to judge. May be a failure, but may be not. What does Iran do, if Trump is reelected? The regime might find it hard to survive another 5 years of sanctions. As of evidence of breaching the deal, which some consider "bad", how about that?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...
Given the assassination of the Iranian General, I doubt there will be five years of sanctions. I suggest things will get very much worse now.Not to disappoint Nik, I note the US administration stated that the assassination was carried out as a pre-emptive act, to stop the General from carrying out anti-American acts. No concern about guilt - they simply don't like Iran.
Nik wrote: "officially the US is not an occupying force." Then what is the official document that makes that so? It is certainly behaving like an occupying force. You say it is fighting ISIS. Well, the only reason ISIS got beaten is because of that General they just assassinated. You say they are there for their own operational needs. That IS the definition of an occupation - they are there for their own needs, not for the country's. They will do what they like, and not what the local government asks. That is what an occupation force does. Why do they have this base at Kirkuk? What needs do they have there? You say they are there to confront Iran's dangerous activities. Since when did Iraq state Iran was carrying out activities dangerous to it? In terms of Iran, they are there solely for enforcing US foreign policy, and that is also a characteristic of an occupation. An occupation is defined not what Washington describes its activities as, but how it behaves and acts.
So they kill Qassem Soleimani who was organising the fight against ISIS and al Nusrah. Who gave them the right to do that? It is alleged they killed five others - presumably drivers, etc, perhaps like some of the contractors that have been killed in actions the US describes as terrorism. Why is it terrorism when they do it, but legitimate pre-emptive killing when the US does it? Why is pre-emptive killing legitimate?
If I knew how to do this, which I don't, I would post a photo I just downloaded from the web. It shows a bunch of US military lined up for a photo, which is fine except in front of them there is a dead Iraqi youth, a trophy. One of the soldiers is holding the head, which he just cut off with a combat knife, and according to the text, which I cannot verify, the youth was killed by that knife. That to me shows two things. (a), it most certainly is an occupation because those soldiers KNOW they are immune to local laws, and (b) it shows parts of the US army there is either an ill-disciplined rabble or they know the army could not care enough about what the locals think to take any meaningful disciplinary action.
Ian wrote: "Given the assassination of the Iranian General, I doubt there will be five years of sanctions. I suggest things will get very much worse now...."Or not. Iran started the cycle of violence, they should think very very carefully now, whether they want to escalate further or choke.
Waiting for your calls of restrain, btw :)
Ian wrote: "Then what is the official document that makes that so?...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2...
Ian wrote: "Well, the only reason ISIS got beaten is because of that General they just assassinated....."
Come on, somebody's not exaggerating here :) Can't believe that he's your hero
Although Democrats & Republicans are as usually divided about this operation, but check out how Biden, Warren and Schiff describe this "incredible man":
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/0...
Breaking News.US defensive assassination of QASSEM SULEIMANI, lead military figure in Iran has occurred near Baghdad international airport.
REF #1: https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/statu...
REF #2: https://twitter.com/alihashem_tv/stat...
Noting that the markets have responded as follows.
Stocks down.
US Bonds up.
Gold/Silver/Oil up.
Financial risks are on, risk of war is on.
Nik, the document that legitimised the US army presence there (the SOFA document in your link) expired in 2011, at which point the US army was supposed to be out of Iraq. It isn't, so that does not negate my statement that to the extent that the US army is there, that presence is a military occupation.Once again, you seem t be failing to appreciate that I am trying to analyse the situation. I never said Qassem was my hero - my position was that before he went to Iraq, ISIS was controlling a very large fraction of it and was murdering minorities that refused to accept its Wahabbi doctrine of Islam. He organised the Shiite opposition and put some spine into them. Prior to his appearance, when the Iraqi army met ISIS forces they dropped their weapons and ran; after Qassem, they cleaned out ISIS and were the only really effective ground forces.
A further point is that Qassem was a top Iranian leader. There is a general consensus that one does not assassinate opposition political leaders. Amongst other things, it very seldom ends well.
The next question I have for you is why does Trump have the right to order the killing of someone just because Trump says the someone is going to do something bad? Evidence? Note that Trump does not have a great reputation for telling the truth. Is your position that someone working against the interests of the US deserves to die?
Then there is the question of sovereignty. Why has Trump got the right (other than through the might through his command of an occupation power) to kill someone who is approved by the government of the country? The Iraqi prime minister condemned the action, and since the majority of the Iraqi parliament are either PMF or allied to the PMF, and the PMF apparently was happy to have Qassem there, this is a blatant criminal use of power. If somebody else did that to a US senator, say, the US would go beserk.
You mention the Democrats. What they say was hardly a ringing endorsement of the action. Yes, they did call him a terrorist, but exactly what has he done that was terrorism, as opposed to carrying out his military duty in ways that did not suit the US, such as fighting al Nusrah, ISIS, and helping al Assad retain control of Syria?
Which brings us to the question, how do you see this unravelling? You call for restraint, and while that would be desirable if it led to peace and justice, exactly how do you see Iran getting peace and justice, other than bowing down to the might of the US military and whatever the US wants. One of the objectives outlined above was that the US wants to promote western values. Exactly what are those values it is promoting through this action?
Ian, it's simply amazing how no matter what happens the US is the bad guy for you and your Iranian terrorists are noble Isis fighters. The US didn't retaliate for a long time, until it just did.Iran bombed SA oil facilities, you were not outraged, tankers, rocket attacks - are all fine or at best - 'unproven' for you, but when the US finally lost its amazingly almost unlimited patience - it's the end of the world for you.
If you are trying to analyze - Suleimani is like the head of Iranian GRU, responsible for lots of death and destruction. They say they had intel more were supposed to be coming - well, we saw the increase of attacks and how they went deadlier - so very likely.
The game has changed and it's on Iran now to decide what to do, bearing in mind Saddam's fate.
Iran can be a prosperous country, they need to do very little - just to prove their rhetoric, that they mean no harm.
Will they do that? I hope, for they know their limits and real balance of power. Whether to go down the whole way - is ultimately their choice.
The US has a full and unalienable right to go after those who attack and threat it and doing it wisely - before those threats turn real.
You live in a much nicer part of the world, many local dudes here respect only one thing - force. Being nice and 'western values' just make them more insolent.
They were disdainful with a 'weak' Trump, let's see what they do with a 'strong' one.
And if you are still analyzing - they can come out with a 'good' deal virtually tomorrow, maybe giving just a little more than they gave Obama, for Trump might settle for not more than a symbolic improvement, allowing for nearing elections & deteriorating situ with N. Korea.
Iran and militias pounding US and its allies and the US calling local police & seeking protection, what kind of fantasy is that? :)
I'm pretty sure that US forces are still in Iraq with full legal authority from the US and Iraq government. That Iran positioned a high value target outside Baghdad airport looks like a tactical error to me.
Taking out opposing military leadership in a war zone is SOP.
Suleimani was had of the Quds. Our radio had a clip of Trump's speech that said that he was a terrorist and had killed or tortured thousands of Iranians and that was the reason, apart from the fact he intended to do damage. Are we now saying the US has the right to kill anyone who is in charge of an organization that mistreats their own citizens? Given the US history of supporting dictators in the past, that is an interesting take.If there were evidence that he really did intend to do damage, then maybe your case would be better, but there isn't. As for rocket attacks on Saudi oil, yes, the rockets will have come from Iran, but it does not follow that Iran fired them. The attack could well have been a response to the Saudis continually bombing Yemen, which has led to a mini-genocide. I take it you don't object to that? The US response has merely been to sell more bombs, and apparently assist by aerial refuelling.
You also say that Iran can come up with a "good deal". What comprises a good deal? Their stepping back and leaving the Yemeni Shiites to be wiped out? Leaving al Assad to his own devices, to be replaced by a Wahabbi force governing Syria? So, Nik, what is your answer?
Just to preempt the obvious, I agree Iran should recognise Israel and stop making rhetoric like "Death to Israel". That is not at all helpful, but equally that alone would not be anywhere near adequate.
Nik wrote: "Iran and militias pounding US and its allies and the US calling local police & seeking protection, what kind of fantasy is that? :)"Pounding the US? really? Leaving aside the possibility that the Kirkuk raid was ISIS inspired, surely the US has done most of the pounding in the region. The US bombed a Syrian contingent heading to recover control of its oil resources east of Deir es Zor, killing at least a hundred. That was in response to what? Or to protect its control of the oil?
Graeme, I may be jumping t conclusions, but I would assume that the General was outside Baghdad international airport because he had arrive on a plane. If so, he would have official permission to be in the country, and recall he had been invited by the Iraqi government many times before, when Iraq was having trouble getting rid of ISIS. Most of the militias, as an aside, are part of the PMF, and the PMF has the majority in the Iraqi parliament, so we can assume he was not sneaking in.The US forces are there with the permission of the US government, obviously, but according to Nik's link, they are supposed to have left, although some have remained to train Iraqi soldiers, as for that matter, some Australian and NZ forces have been invited there to do that. But training soldiers is not the same as carrying out assassinations and bombings.
Your comment about taking out opposing leaders in a war zone is interesting. Is the US officially at war with Iran? If so, much of what I have written above is nonsense, but I assumed they were not.
Clearly, the US is not at war with Iran. However, hostilities occupy a spectrum of action ranging from economic sanctions through to full scale military conflict. Assassination is somewhere in the middle of the 'hostility,' spectrum.My understanding is that the IRGC Quds Force led by Suleimani is a designated FTO, therefore making Suleimani a leader of an FTO, and by extension a high-value target that would be taken out once an opportunity presents itself.
REF: US State Dept: https://www.state.gov/designation-of-...
I also find it extraordinary that he was on the ground in IRAQ.
This guy's forces were responsible for more than 600 American deaths during the Iraq War. We're in Iraq today because of the conflict with ISIS. We may not be officially at war, but you might as well call it one. What we're hearing is that it was his Iranian backed forces responsible for the attack a week ago, and it was these Iranian supported groups that stormed our embassy and vandalized it.Ian can have his opinions. I don't think it's any secret that we in the US think just a little less of non-US deaths than we do of American deaths. Not to say we're unsympathetic or to say that it's a right opinion to hold, but to be honest, it's a true one nonetheless. Ian's outside the fray, so to speak, so I would think it's understandable he sees the situation a little differently from us Americans who watch our troops or our contractors shedding their blood over there.
I think what's been truly disgusting about this raid is the opinions our own Democratic congressmen and Presidential candidates have been spouting. Again, this is a guy who has 600 American deaths attributed to him, including the one of the recent contractor who was killed. I get certain politicians hate trump. I get they don't want to give him credit for anything, but this is one of those things where they need to keep their mouths shut and just stew in the background. When they criticism Trump on anything they can over this attempt, it's a slap in the face to every American family who lost a loved one because of this guy. Regardless of what comes next, it was the right thing to do for us. This is the bin Laden raid. This is the Al-Bagdadi raid. This was a good, measured response to the attack on our embassy - Trump shows strength without over reacting by trying to take out the Iranian government. Instead of gritting their teeth and giving Trump his props, or keeping their anti-trump opinions to themselves until this fades from the public consciousness, they engage the usual victim blaming/shaming. They act like their the victims of whatever. They're acting like Hillary Clinton when she made the Benghazi fiasco all about her. They're acting like her husband Bill during his sex scandals, acting like the victim when he was engaging in human trafficking as governor of Arkansas when he had the state troopers ferrying prostitutes into the governor's mansion.
Ian,You are correct that there is no current SOFA with Iraq. There are about 5,200 troops in Iraq by agreement with the Iraqi government. Their mission was training the Iraqi troops. ISIS brought them back into a combat role.
Graeme says the US is no at war, J.J. says it might as well be called one. Looking at this from an external point of view, I disagree with the comment that Iranian forces killed 600 Americans during the Iraq invasion. As I understand it, the US invaded on sheer political grounds and the locals opted for guerrilla-type defence. The locals were Iraqis, not Iranians, and they were resisting the invasion. Conceptually, I see this as no different from the French resistance against German occupation, other than the sympathies as to who was involved. The French were supported by British supplies, some agents, and they killed Germans. The Iraqi resistance is supplied by Iran, supported by Iranian agents, but the big difference is the Irqi government mainly supports these militias because they are the only real defence against ISIS. All the US did was to bomb, e.g. take a look at Mosul.
But I agree with Graeme in that if Qassem is designated as a terrorist by the US, he really had to be a little less obvious, and coming into the international airport was a clear tactical mistake. Where this goes now is anybody's guess.
The figure of 608 (to be exact) comes from deaths attributed to a specific type of IED that was being manufactured in Iran, and Soleimani headed the unit overseeing this campaign, The militias in question were backed and supported by Iran, they weren't a loose collection of backwards locals making things up as they went.https://connectingvets.radio.com/arti...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/yo...
Whether it's factual to the core or planted for us by intelligence or the mix of both, Reuters here offers an interesting insight into Soleimani's goings: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...and on events preceding the decision to neutralize him:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...
Ian wrote: "Graeme says the US is no at war, J.J. says it might as well be called one. Looking at this from an external point of view, I disagree with the comment that Iranian forces killed 600 Americans dur..."
It's an unannounced war. It would be ridiculous if Iran meant war by attacking US troops and US would remain "peaceful", just because it's not official. In recent growing tensions, Iran meticulously planned their attacks to avoid casualties among Americans, but once this line was crossed...
If one punches Mike Tyson's nephew, his brother and then slaps Mike on the face, don't come whining after Mike knocks him out that he had a weaker punch or weren't a boxer :)
We note that the US position in the links above stated that the General was a terrorist because he supplied explosives to Shiite militias that killed several hundred US servicemen (J.J., quotes 608) from 2003. As a consequence of the US invasion, which appeared to be nothing more than a political move by the neocons because there were certainly no weapons of mass destruction, there were three orders of magnitude more Iraqis killed - see https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-o...So it is a terrible thing that 608 US servicemen die when they are trained professional soldiers, but it is of no moment that over 600,000 Iraqis die when they have no real say in the matter, and to make matters worse, they find their infrastructure collapsed (no electricity, no health services, no "a lot of other things") and their heritage pillaged by the conquering "heroes. Look at the black market auctions of stuff originating in places like Akkad, Sumer, and explain how that got there through western values. But that's OK; they are just Iraqis. Not exactly like Americans.
Since we like numbers, it has been reported https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&r...
that breast cancer rates in Basra increased by 200% from 2015 - 2019, while according to https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&r...
overall cancer rates in Iraq were 40 per 100,000 people, and now they are at least 1600 per 100,000 people. A good reason would be the depleted uranium, which on striking something oxidises to a uranium oxide aerosol, and is an alpha emitter. After Bush's invasion, I had a small article published by the Chemical Society that pointed out in the deserts of Iraq there is no real way to agglomerate this stuff, and in principle, because Iraq is inherently dusty, we can expect cancers from ingested dust for the indefinite future. Nobody contradicted that argument. It also gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to see my prediction validated by numbers.
So, what I gather is that this sort of behaviour, mass killing then, the destruction of infrastructure, and the mass imposition of cancers is OK as long as it is dealt to them. They have no right to retaliate and no means of obtaining justice or redress, and the political will of Washingon rules. Washington takes no responsibility for the consquences of it actions, and it has the right of might to do what it likes. They can kill who they like, but should anyone retaliate, there will be strong retribution. Is that right, or have I missed something?
You missed a lot, Ian: it's al least few hundred, if not thousands, vs 1 soleimani & his lieutenants.Saddam bears full responsibility for his country and people. He said he'd come out victorious like ayatollahs say today. If they do something and wake up next morning without oil refineries - it'll be their responsibility. Trump is right that they should want peace the most, as militarily are no match to the States, yet they chose to escalate hitherto.
A war is not about sparing adversary: it's about minimizing your losses while maximizing those of the opponent with the aim of achieving a victory. Iraqi ppl suffered because of the idiot that thought himself as a big conquerer and Iranian people suffer from their economy melting down because of hatred and megalomaniac ambitions of ayatollahs.
O'Brien charted their two alternative paths: retaliation/escalation or trying to negotiate a deal. Which one would you recommend, Ian, and which one do you think they'll choose?
Nik, I picked the 608 because that is the subset nominated above. The total number of US killed was 6900 by the end of 2018, according to one source.No contest about Saddam - he was a clod of the first order. Of course Iran should want peace, but the sanctions, etc, are economic war.
Disagree a little about warfare. No disagreement about minimizing your losses, but the aim should be to succeed in your objectives, which should be in turn chosen to best achieve your goal. There must then be a clear idea of "what next?" after achieving the goal. That is effectively the von Manstein view of the upper parts of strategy, but I would add that the goal should be clear and worth the price in achieving it.
Looking at Qassem, the objective was to kill him, and that was clearly achieved. So, what was the goal that that contributed to? My guess is that that act has made the chances of stabilizing Iraq that much more difficult. As to "what next?" I feel that the US really has no plan here, other than to respond to whatever the militias decide to do.
A comment on Qassem having plans for all sorts of actions against the US. He wouldn't be doing his job if he hadn't, but that does not mean to say he was planning on carrying them out. He should have had plans in case the situation got worse, and in this context, the US military is always planning on how to fight wars all over the place, but the plans are not put into practice.
As to what I recommend, obviously negotiation, but I don't see how the Iranians can achieve this. Trump has made it clear that a deal from his point of view is effectively his dictating. There was a deal, and Trump pulled out, without giving a clue as to what would be a substitute. The Iranians should have offered to negotiate earlier. They probably didn't, in part due to obstinate stupidity, but also in part because they didn't think it would get anywhere. They should have more clearly noted Kim's tactics, although I suppose he did not get very far either. The problem is, Trump will not concede anything until Iran does x,y,z for an extended period of time, at which point of time another President will turn down the deal. So Iran gains nothing from any attempt, no matter what. However, I still think it should try, if for no other reason than to find out what Trump wants, and to buy a little time. The problem then is, how, because there is no sign that the current administration wants anything but total surrender.
A new thread for discussing US ME policy, it's various forms, ramifications, politics, economics, culture, strategy, tactics, alliances, supporters, opponents, reflection of internal US politics, etc...
Let's always remember that none of us has the whole truth or access to all the facts, and please be kind and civil to each other - in sharp distinction to what happens on the ground in too many parts of the world.