Nobody seriously disputes the fact that Iran has been waging an undeclared war against the U.S. for many years, depending on American aversion to the short and long term results of a military response, particularly among the Left’s permanent anti-military lobby in the U.S. The apotheosis of this strategy was Obama’s virtual capitulation in 2015, in which Iran received seized assets and secret “pallets full of cash,” while the U.S. received hostages illegally held by Iran and a dubious promise not to prepare to nuke Israel for a while. Iran has been playing the role of a small child abusing a larger, stronger rival, confident that any retaliation would be seen as bullying.
The United States and the world is always safest when the man in the White House is deemed capable of using the arsenal within his command as the deterrent it was built to be. This is one reason why Ronald Reagan was able to win the Cold War. For all the Left’s criticism of the war in Afghanistan, the alternative to forcefully retaliating for the attacks of 2001 would have been confirmation that the United States was a “toothless tiger,” weak, and cowardly, unwilling to defend itself and its citizens. Such a perception would have been dangerous, encouraging more terrorism, and more attacks.
As General Petraeus explained,
“Suleimani was …responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria…. [Trump’s] reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.”
Why yes, I’d say that’s a reasonable interpretation of what happened, and hallelulia for that! Iran has responded in a manner that reveals its essential madness and barbarism, putting a bounty on President Trump’s head, and doing its familiar “American Satan” routine that we have been treated to since President Jimmy Carter cowered inertly in the White House after Iran kidnapped 52 of our diplomats and embassy personnel more than 40 years ago.
Iranians have good reasons to hate the U.S., beginning with its amoral, “ends justify the means” support of the brutal Shah for his value in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Those good reasons are unfortunately bolstered by the lethal ideology of Islam. Whatever the provocation, the endless prosecution of a hit-and-run war on America and Americans was not tolerable response, and it should have been stopped by diplomacy or force long ago. President Trump took decisive action, using a target that not only deserved his fate but one who was gaining power and making it clear that he intended more carnage. He also openly mocked the U.S., which was the equivilent of those scenes in movies where a character faces a foe pointing a loaded gun at him, and chides, “You’ll never pull the trigger! That’s not who you are! You don’t have the guts!” As watching just a few of those films teaches, one better know the gun-wielding adversary really, really well before taking that tact. Suleimani was literally asking for it, and got it.
Defending him, as an astounding number of Democrats and “resistance” members, is both irresponsible and nuts. As with much of what we have seen from that side of the ideological spectrum for a decade or more, such a response absurdly misreads our culture and character. Americans don’t like being pushed around, insulted and degraded, especially by those of poor character, bad motives and rotten values. They also don’t like individuals who provide aid and comfort to our enemies, and Iran is an enemy, make no mistake about that. It certainly seems to me that Democrats and their coup partners are doing everything they can think of to drive anti-Trump citizens with even a shred of rationality left over to the President’s side. This seems really crazy to me. We shall see.
With this lengthy introduction, I’m curious as to what Ethics Alarms readers think is the most indefensible, most unhinged, most despicable of these three reactions to Suleimani’s death. Two of them have been noted on Ethics Alarms already.
Here are the candidates…
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
“We are outraged the President would assassinate a foreign official, possibly setting off another war without Congressional authorization and has zero plan to deal with the consequences.”
Though not as hysterical as another candidate, Omar take is arguably more offensive, because it is so calculatedly dishonest. The General wasn’t killed because he was ‘ a foreign official,” but because he was an active and infamous terrorist and an enemy combatant. As Aaln Dershowitz explained, “there’s no doubt” that Soleimani “fit the description of ‘combatant.’ He [was] a uniformed member of an enemy military who was actively planning to kill Americans; American soldiers and probably, as well, American civilians.” The attack was consequently “legally justified.” Saying the U.S. assassinated a “foreign official”—and killing a combatant in self-defense isn’t an “assassination”—in Soleimani’s case is like saying that when Ted Bundy was executed capital punishment was inflicted on a law student. It’s deceit.
Combine this statement with Omar’s earlier description of the tragedy of 9-11 as “somebody did something,” and we get a very ugly picture.
More dishonesty: the President did not require Congressional authorization to drone the terrorist, and Omar has no possible way of knowing what plans the President and his military advisors have regarding the contingencies.
Discussed in detail here, the Nike spokesman/serial kneeler tweeted,
The former actress and current #MeToo fury tweeted,
More about Rose here.
Here’s the twitter link in case you want to share this with Facebook friends, since FB has banned Ethics Alarms for unexplained reasons: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1214008761230282755