SABRES 0311

I could see it either way. Some acts targeting U.S. military personnel in Iraq are attributed to Iran. The biggest difference I have seen is the number of casualties associated. There is a follow on to the definition of assassination which talks about indirect involvement. I can’t remember EO but I’ll find it. Domestically this situation relies heavily on the legalities so I don’t think it gets resolved quickly.

Was the purpose to start a war or to inhibit the command and control of a foreign threat? Maybe from here on out we should just stick to responding to an attack instead of preventing it even if we have foreknowledge. Then we can kill the bad guy after they have killed some of ours. Now if it’s proven that the attack was ordered for purely a political or ideological goal then it’s assassinatiin. Trump should be held accountable for it if so.

So what information that has been released leads people think Trump is trying to start a war? Same people accusing Trump of warmongering said he should’ve kept U.S. military personnel in Syria. A situation with a lot of potential for an international incident with a peer/near peer and a battlespace consisting of multiple foreign forces. When Trump was calling KJU names people said he’s trying to start WW3. That didn’t age well. Why were they saying that then and why are they saying it now? Two reasons, ignorance and narrative.

Considering the Quds Force is designated by multiple countries to include the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Unprovoked? I didn’t know you had access to the national security information detailing the supposed imminent threat. I think you are letting your personal view of Trump interfere with your assessment of events. Thereby painting him as the bad guy and Suleimani and Iran as a victim of unwarranted U.S. aggression.

Trump has people guessing because the administration has not laid out the road to the strike which should be done. Beyond that domestic politics plays a part. One example is people taking to twitter apologizing to Iran. We also have people who ask things like what do we do now if there is an air raid. Nothing, because Iran does not possess the capability to conduct such an attack on the continental U.S. and their allies will not do it on their behalf. Iran will use proxies to sabotage U.S. and allied efforts in the Middle East. They may threaten to block the Strait of Hormuz as well. They know they cannot win a conventional war with the U.S. and an act attributed directly to them would increase the chance of that.

It didn’t work out because the administration chose not to follow through with killing him which may very well have disrupted their command and control as well as ability to coordinate with governing bodies such as the Taliban. Another failure was lack of coordination between intelligence agencies to define the pre 9/11 threat. One of the reasons DHS was created.

I’m still military. act of war (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; Source 18 USC § 2331(4) Additional defining of act of war identifies an act to provoke war. Verbally stated as the opposite reason for the strike. The definition of armed conflict is debated internationally to include the number of deaths associated, somewhere between 25 and 1,000. Therefore one could say we have been in armed conflict with Iran due to the number of U.S. military personnel killed as a result Iranian influence in the Iraq theatre of operations. Then again you could say no. This is important because it helps identify if the kinetic strike was a continuation of armed conflict hence an act of war. Assassination is the killing of a prominent figure for political or ideological goals. In this case Suleimani was not killed to affect politics. The purpose of the strike was to reduce the capability of a foreign force to carry out what we are told was an imminent threat. Therefore, the kinetic strike, unless otherwise proven does not meet the definition of an assassination but rather a preemptive act in the defense of a threat. Trump needs to state what the threat was and define the credibility. This can be done through following four points. History, intent, capability, and ability.

Reducing a country or organization’s ability to execute an attack is defensive. Kind of like how we struck Al Queda training camps and plotted to kill Bin Laden in the nineties. Or like the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran. Punching a guy in the face because he presents himself as a threat is also defensive. You are using an offensive capability for defensive means. Rules of Engagement as I remember them stated you have the right to “defend” yourself if presented a threat. We killed the commander of the Quds force to reduce a threat. We didn’t invade Iran. Domestically Trump should articulate what the threat was.

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified?

1. Welcome to the dark side. 2. If there actually was a reasonable expectation that killing Suleimani reduced a credible threat then it was a preemptive strike in defense. If so is it still an act of war? I could go either way. The ball is now on Iran’s court as far as escalation.

Ill roll with it. Trump ordered an act of war against a country calling for our destruction, looking to develop nuclear capabilities, and tied to the deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. With all that extra baggage tied to Iran we wait until there is supposedly a credible imminent threat. Then we kill a commander of an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Problem is in this case it’s an act of war if the action was meant to provoke a war. To date that’s the exact opposite of the stated purpose for the strike.

You mean assassinating the commander of an organization designated a terrorist group by multiple countries? You can’t play a part in killing U.S. service members, shout death to America for decades, threaten to destroy an ally then cry when we drop one or two of your military commanders.

How do you know the killing was meant to start a war? Neither you or I have the reporting that lead to the strike. Neither do reporters. I get anonymous people are saying it was “razor thin” but in order to know the value of that we have to know a couple things. Things like how much of the info did they have access to, is this an analysis or opinion, do the anonymous people actually exist? He just happened to be at the Baghdad Airport when the embassy was attacked? If there was actually a credible threat he was overseeing then killing him reduces command and control thus disrupting planning and execution. All I’m saying is hold judgment on why/how this happened until more comes out.

Not every killing is meant to start a war. Not every general looks at their sole purpose as taking of life. If taking life and starting war was the only purpose of a military and military commander none of us would be here today.

Honestly I don’t know for sure. I think humans in the world today focus on looking for the threat or negativity in situations. It very much played a part in Trump’s election and in the situation we are in today. To be fair both situations are a product of external factors. To answer your question a little better I think it comes down to Iran seeing us as an imminent threat they need to defend against or retaliation out of ego. I ignore Iran’s statements of targeting military sites. Therefore I see a world of possibilities. If I had to guess we will see an uptick in violence between Israel and Palestinian militants. I wouldn’t be surprised if violence increased in Afghanistan as well. I also see increased Iranian military training as a show of force along with verbal threats. Iran, I think, would like to be seen as the victim and maybe wants to entice Trump to authorize another strike. Spun correctly Iran could use it to bring their divided population together and strengthen the regime’s hold.

Boom.

I get that argument but a war hasn’t started yet. Not all generals have done what that guy did.

Well she made it sound like killing a general was too much for killing a civilian contractor. What she left out is what the general has done in the past.

Negative. In his tweet he said sites important to the Iranian culture. Furthermore, it wasn’t a threat to destroy but to hit very hard. In Iraq the U.S. instituted maneuver warfare with the goal of taking Baghdad. In the process we pushed through lesser important cities. Targeting say Tehran not only interrupts their command and control but sends a psychological message resulting in degraded morale. Both I believe are crucial to defense against an invasion by a superior force. Dropping a JDAM and obliterating a cultural site would strengthen their resolve. The exact opposite of how to fight. Targeting sites of cultural significance opens the door for indigenous opposition as well. Major mosques and city centers (cultural sites) under control of an opposing force assists in the growth of opposition to the current governing body. Therefore I think what Trump means is we will hit Iranian cultural centers very hard in order to degrade military control, decrease morale (willingness to fight), set conditions for opposition political control and control of key terrain. Then again I doubt we will find out. Still, how this is handled will impact my support from purely a political perspective. Addition: Trump has been relatively quiet minus a couple posts since the strike. Just a feeling but I won’t be surprised if something happens in the next 48 hours. I’m probably wrong though.

I agree the tariffs may backfire regardless of the goals. While they may slow China’s military growth/expanse, they have the potential to drive China into the arms of competitors. I wouldn’t be surprised if the tariffs play a part in the lack of recent action on NK. As NK’s number one ally, U.S. relations with China will determine NK’s cooperation. If we are friends with China they can provide a positive influence to our benefit. China is also calling for calm after our Iranian strike. While likely not as influential compared to NK, China could provide back channel mediation. In return for not becoming a war time president, Trump may provide continued easing of the tariffs.

For me, how this is handled will impact my support. I’m not down for a new 20 year war that my kids would have to fight if they chose to follow my footsteps. Lady on MSNBC said the strike on a foreign military leader was not proportional to the death of a civilian. Disgusting, but expected.

First step into a warm house after a physically demanding, cold week away.

So I did some thinking after I saw Trump’s long tweet telling Iran we have 52 targets. In that tweet he talked about targeting the Iranian culture. Obviously this brought on some amusing comments saying trump is about to target civilians and become a war criminal. Iran has an issue with some of its population wanting reform, I think as far as regime change. If you read the tweet on the surface it sounds like targeting as with kinetic strikes. I don’t think that is what is meant. Trump does not seem to be a long war, long conflict guy. If/when Iran retaliates I think we will try to target their culture by triggering internal conflict. Sort of nudging them over the cliff they are on. As for retaliation I think Iran will make good on their threat but not the way some people have posted on other sites.

Expresso or espresso?

Sounds like what I was saying in my first post. More people to deal with the workload.