Posted on 01/19/2020 6:40:15 AM PST by Kaslin
President Trump shocked the world — and mortified Democrats — when he authorized a lethal drone strike against Iranian General and super-terrorist Qassem Soleimani. The real surprise, however, wasn't that Trump suddenly found the gumption to target a high-profile Iranian — it was that it took America so long to rid the world of a man with so much American blood on his hands. Previous U.S. administrations, afraid of “escalation,” allowed the agents of Iran free rein in their murderous plots. Sooner or later, America had to push back.
What's odd, though, is that the entirely justifiable U.S. strike on Soleimani produced, in turn, a direct Iranian missile strike on two U.S. bases in Iraq. President Trump warned before these strikes occurred that America would not tolerate aggression against our servicemen and assets in the region — and a broad list of targets in Iran had been identified for potential retaliatory action.
The Iranians chose to avenge Soleimani in a particularly bold and provocative way. They launched ballistic missiles from Iran itself, targeting bases in Iraq where large numbers of U.S. servicemen are stationed. Iran could have used Iraqi proxies to do its dirty work; it could have attacked Israel or our allies in Iraq instead of U.S. soldiers. Instead it decided to go all out by mounting a direct assault on American personnel that left no doubt about who was responsible.
The missile strikes against two U.S. bases, as it happened, killed no U.S. servicemen. That is largely because Americans were able to take shelter as the missiles rained down. As recent reporting has shown, however, some soldiers were lightly injured by the concussive effects of the blasts.
President Trump chose to let sleeping dogs lie after the Iranian attack. He declared the cycle of retaliation complete, and he cheered the fact that Iran appeared to be “standing down”.
Given the apocalyptic reporting in the news media in the preceding days about an imminent “war” with Iran, Trump's restraint must have come as a surprise to Democrats and Trump haters. That Trump eschews involvement in foreign conflicts, however, has been obvious for a long time. Trump is willing to break the rules of diplomacy, yes, and even to use military force in unconventional ways, but he seemingly has no appetite for major military confrontations, and in fact he has been trying, with limited success, to disengage the United States from the grinding conflicts to which it is already committed, like the Syrian Civil War and the War in Afghanistan.
What ought to give the American people pause, however, is the strange precedent that President Trump has now set vis-a-vis foreign aggression. He punished Iran with lethal force for, as the administration described it, formulating plans to attack U.S. assets. When the Iranians directly assaulted U.S. bases, however, he demurred from retaliation.
What is the lesson here that Iran is supposed to learn? That the contemplation of terrorist acts against Americans may provoke us to violence, but the actual lobbing of sophisticated missiles at our bases, with the potential to kill dozens or hundreds of Americans, will only yield a yawn and a shrug?
If anything, it would seem that Iran's missile strikes were what demanded a resolute response. Our failure to deliver it could embolden Iran, and other hostile actors around the world, to target U.S. military personnel and bases directly. The results could be tragic, on a human level, and deeply destabilizing on a political and strategic level, since a successful assault on American personnel would presumably produce a whirlwind of violent consequences.
The time for retaliation in the wake of Iran's dastardly missile strikes has now passed. Unfortunately, that means that President Trump missed a crucial opportunity to demonstrate his seriousness about fulfilling his No. 1 responsibility as commander in chief: the protection of U.S. lives from foreign aggression.
We can only hope that this oversight does not put more of our servicemen in harm's way.
Anyone who really believes it will end up going “unanswered” ain’t been paying attention.
The additional sanctions are just the first phase - President Trump likes to wait for the best moments...
Waddy is a child. He knows nothing at all, but hey, it’s a free country, he has the right to open his mouth and prove it.
I think the way we killed Soleimani left little doubt about our intentions and capabilities. Trump played it exactly right. Had Americans died, we would not be having this discussion. Things would have happened.
What did we do when the marine barracks in Lebanan were levelled?
Diplomacy is an art, and the militar ARE pawns of the leadership, but in the way that any soldier who knows history will understand. It’s why a bunch of guys are sent to the Omaha beach, even though we KNOW a lot of them will die.
One thing those on the left are right about: Tit for tat is not how you win. It’s how you find your servicemen trying to get out of the country via helicopter from a building top in Vietnam.
WATCH!......TIK,TOK,Tik......
*******
GyG@PLANETWTF?/WNW!
***
SEMPERTRUMP.45!
++++++++++++++++++++
Some men can’t wait for other men to go to war.
> Trump played it exactly right. <
I agree 100%. Trump took out a bad guy. Then he let Iran save face by allowing them to fire off a few missiles. Iran can now claim that the whole thing was a draw. But of course that’s not true. And everyone knows it. Advantage, Trump.
Can A Direct Attack on American Servicemen Really Go Unanswered?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course not.
Just be careful in what we say here.
Surprise is a necessary component to future action.
And the response will be surgical, lethal, and deeply destructive to the Mullahs behind this Islamo-fascist regime.
Count in it. The game is already afoot. But pay attention to the marine Mullahs...the speed boat rag heads, or accidents at the centrifuge sites.
Have the supply lines and strategy in place before escalating, IMHO.
“Trump’s restraint must have come as a surprise to Democrats and Trump haters.”
A disappointment to them, not a surprise.
Aww.
The poor little Neocons are unhappy.
Trump has put competent generals in his council who understand punitive strikes, and are aware that not every military confrontation calls for a war of occupation.
The neocons has a sad.
“Direct attack”?
Make a visit to Walter Reed. The indirect attacks are just as bad.
you said a mouthful there
And in this case, the supply lines need consist of airpower resupply practically in total.
A war of occupation would be counterproductive.
After Iran shot down the commercial jet it was actually better to let it go seeing how the Iranian people rose up in defiance of their leaders. Had we retaliated to the missiles that in essence did little, those demonstrations would have been aimed at the US. Did Trump luck into it? Perhaps, but I’d like to think quick analysis ruled the day.
17 of the 19 missiles hit their target dead center thanks to the Russians giving the Iranians GLONASS guidance cards. The Iranians have 100s of thousands more missiles in missile caves. Should they launch waves of missiles, there is no defense against that many.
The Iranians punished themselves by shooting down a civilian airliner, earning worldwide condemnation and triggering massive civil unrest. If Trump had responded to the largely symbolic Iranian provocation he would have been doing exactly what they wanted him to do.
I am hoping any attack from Iran or it’s proxies will be the very last one. We cannot allow them to get a nuclear weapon as they will use it.
11 injured after trump said no injuries on the 8th. No response. Unacceptable
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.