Fallout from the U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq

Background: Following a recent air strike in Syria which targeted in response to deadly Hezbollah attacks;

The Pentagon said it was responding after the group fired more than 30 rockets at a US base in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk on Friday, killing an American civilian contractor.

In response, Iranian backed protesters attacked the US embassy in Baghdad in Iraq. President Trump then vowed that this would not be another Benghazi.

The next event in the sequence was that the United States conducted an airstrike in Iraq, killing an Iranian general forbidden from leaving Iraq, as well as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. The U.S. embassy issued a warning to Americans in the region. President Trump tweeted the following moments ago:

....of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

****************

Media fallout:  The media responded with craziness once again.  They are willing to overlook that the president did not inform Russia prior to the airstrikes as any good Putin puppet should.  Putin is clearly not happy about it by the way.  

The left who were freaking out over president Trump removing troops from Syria and Afghanistan are now, predictably calling him a rogue, war monger. I even saw a never-Trumper post implying that the president wants a war to ensure his re-election.

Many articles are saying that the president has fallen into Iran's trap and is being strategically outmaneuvered by the regime.

Geopolitical fallout:  This one is going to be harder to predict.  Iran is clearly suffering from the ratcheted up sanctions imposed by president Trump. Those seem to be the most logical next step for the president but with players like Russia and China (America's true geo-political foes) not on board 

with punishing Iran because it only helps the USA, there may not be much opportunity to increase sanctions more effectively.  The long game for president Trump would be to choke Iran economically into nuclear compliance. 

Don't expect Iran to sit complacently over the economic squeeze.  The problem for them is that they do not have much leverage themselves.  They can work through terrorist organizations they support to sting the USA.  Successful attacks could alter public support for the president.  Failure would only gird support for president Trump.  But if successful, president Trump would have few choices left other than to continue with more airstrikes. 

Many are claiming there will be a rapid escalation but I see this as a more drawn out slow burn just because any escalations take time to plot - Iran doesn't have many cards to play and the USA does not need to escalate anything at this point.

Saturday Learning Series - Geography (Iraq)

The geography and flag of Iraq.

GOP Candidate Info - Marco Rubio Edition

Marco Rubio on Iraq and immigration:

Wednesdy Warren Warning - Iraq Pronouncement

Some bonus footage as it were on the Wednesday Warren Warning.  Is this nuance or just another example of pretzel logic? Elizabeth Warren stands behind president Obama's decision to conduct air strikes in Iraq but believes a solution to the problem must be a negotiated settlement and not a military solution. Worse, she wants the U.S. to negotiate with terrorists but not be seen to be doing so.

She believes ISIS is a terrorist organization. Warren also believes that the negotiations are necessary but that the U.S. should not negotiate with terrorists. It seems though, that it's perfectly alright to have the Iraqi government negotiate with terrorists, whom she sees the U.S. having their positions in the matter managed by*;

“The point is there has to be a negotiated solution in Iraq, but we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” Warren said. She said, “This is partially a question of whether the U.S. government negotiates or whether we have the Iraqi government doing these negotiations, and how we help support them as they try to maintain an integrated country, and a country that better represents all of the people who live there.”

The distinction between negotiating with terrorists and not doing so but helping Iraq while they do so is pretty much non-existent. But who cares? Warren gets to say all the right things to all the right constituencies and that's what really matters to voters isn't it?

Colossalizing failure in Afghanistan

NOTE: For the immediate future posts will be being made by a mobile device.  Consequently posts will be shorter than normal, less frequent and less visually appealing.

Far be it from me to point out a failure in foreign policy by this president (see what I did there?).   But it needs to be pointed out that in addition to the domestic downside of the prisoner exchange for a possible deserter or worse, and in addition to the negotiating with terrorists issue (and claiming the technicality that the Taliban are not terrorists), there is another reason that the prisoner exchange is a catastrophe in the making.

With the U.S. mission ending in Afghanistan, the timing of the release of 5 senior Taliban officials certainly helps the group's chances of retaking power in that country.  The timing couldn't be worse.  The president who claims that Afghanistan was the good war, may have a vested interest in seeing ultimate failure for Bush's wars. The decision to make this prisoner exchange was so bad that it has to be seen as a deliberate attempt to ensure Afghanistan returns to its pre-war state.

A law a Democrat president wants repealed?

Liberals claimed no link exist

Democrats love to add new regulation, and new laws as if that solves everything.  You never hear of anything they'd go back and reconsider, let alone repeal (I give you Obamacare and Medicaid as examples).  But president Obama has stepped up and found a law he'd like repealed.  Of course it is one that comes as no surprise and doesn't even matter any more.

Via Yahoo:

The law that green-lighted the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq is still on the books ― but maybe not for much longer if President Barack Obama has his way, the White House said on Tuesday, two years after he declared the war officially over.

“The Administration supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF,” national security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told Yahoo News, referring to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

But it did.

Obama frequently cites the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as one of his key foreign policy successes. He has repeatedly defended the pull-out, even as he pursues a strategy to leave only a residual force of maybe 8,000 to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. His administration recently promised it would not put boots back on the ground in Iraq in response to the current bloody chaos that threatens its stability.

But leaving the Iraq military force authorization in place could probably come in handy if he, or a future president, wanted to send troops in.

Send drones, repeal teeth.

It would seem that he truly fears the next president undoing his troop withdrawal.   The troops are gone and he's not sending them back in.  The other political way to consider this is that the president may want a Republican controlled Congress and Senate to have to re-vote to authorize force should action become necsssary if al Qaida makes progress in Iraq in the months to come.  He'd thus put the GOP congressmen and women on the record for suppporting going back.

But the reality is that the Congress isn't likely to act upon the president's desire to repeal this law.  So it really just becomes a non-story and another attempt at a diversionary tactic to try to shift attention away from Obamacare as it continues to flounder along.

Plan of the Day: Syria's WMDs

Over at Plan of the Day, there's a brief post on Syria's WMDs that reminds us about Iraq's WMD's and connects the dots to Syria. US and Israeli intelligence knew Iraq's WMDs were moved by the Russians to the Beqaa Valley in east Lebanon.

Go read more, it's a great reminder that the Bush administration understood foreign affairs a lot better than they were ever given credit for understanding.

It's hard to be a security hawk these days.

OMG, I've gone hippie! Or not.

Back in 2003, conservatives rallied around president Bush when the decision to go into Iraq was made.  Even many Democrats who later disavowed denied their initial position rallied behind the decision.  Back then, so close after the events of 9/11, it was easy to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary endeavors.  In fact it was hard to argue that they were not. But after a decade of war, war-weariness has set in for much of the country.  In addition, there has been a diminishing rationale for the continued effort, especially in light of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.   What's a national security hawk to do? Give up on a robust national defense force? No.  Give up on the the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters?  Yes.  


There's a way to consolidate the GOP base and force an Obama stumble in one move - guess what it is.

Arab Spring Hangover

Found on Drudge Report, the following three news stories showing a common thread.  The Arab Spring isn't exactly what the president has been promising.  Forget Afghanistan, Syria and the problems in Iran, just check out the news items below, and see for yourself, things are falling apart fast.

That's not good news for those who held out the Utopian hope that the Arab Spring would usher in a Western, secular, liberal set of cultures in the Middle East.  It turns out, not so much.  Who would have thought?

Clearly, it ain't easy in the Middle East

The president got it really wrong on Iran. He has it wrong on the pullout in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He messed up on Egypt and appeared pretty muddled and reactive on Libya.  He's managed to overlook Syria during some brutal repression.  Pressure might mount for him to do something.  The problem is, it probably won't be something very forward looking.  He's got no credibility on foreign affairs aside from some credit for getting Bin Laden and his computer files - which wasn't really him so much as it was the government apparatus that he doesn't like - the military, the CIA etc.  Foreign affairs isn't a matter of capturing terrorists anyway.

Quick Two Word Opinions

Here's a few more quick hit opinions on recent news items that I haven't had a chance to expound more thought on.

Gaddafi has been killed in Libya, ending his malfeasance forever - About time.

Greece is on the verge of collapse and the EU is at odds about bailing them out again - About time.

Joe Biden wants to run for president in 2016 - Great idea.

U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year end - election bait.

#OWS Occupt Wall Street continues - Really? Yawn.

The Washington Post did a hit piece on Marco Rubio about his parents - no accountability.

Herman Cain leads the Nevada straw poll - Raising Cain.  (I had to say it somewhere).

Iraq paying U.S. for F16s

What did the U.S. get out of the Iraq war? No Saddam, and now it's receiving payment for 18 F16 fighter jets that help secure Iraq against an Iran full of bluster and other regional threats.  It wasn't a ar for oil, which progressives would conveniently have you forget (since they were wrong).  But at least the U.S. is getting some modest financial return from the effort.

Some new two word opinions

Again I'm swamped.  But I've got some more quick - very quick, in fact two word opinions - on some of the latest news items because I just can't let them pass without saying something.

Let's all pretend Obama is tough now.

Yes, I'm this great.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that President Obama's new found toughness is real and not a re-election tactic designed to fool semi-aware voters. Even if he is suddenly a tough guy, it doesn't make his foreign policy and foreign relations effort any less inept.  But that won't stop the White House and a complicit press from trying to spin the yarn about a tough guy President - an image they feel he needs for re-election in 2012.

American Middle East Policy: F.

While U.S. Middle East policy has ranged from a B to D under previous administrations, the current state of affairs represents no better than an F.  While the blame can not be laid entirely at the feet of President Obama, the lion's share certainly rests with his inaction.  Libya likely represents another lost opportunity for the United States in what is rapidly becoming a embarrassment of lost opportunities. The problem is bigger than the gaffes of just one President; it is a result of endemic short-sighted American Middle East policy that pre-dates President Obama, though his contributions to the problem have been major.

Raining on the Democrats' parade

Tonight President Obama will announce mission accomplished on Iraq. Never mind that they never supported the mission. Never mind that they called it a failure prior to the surge that the President will now take credit for succeeding.

The real issue is that there is a significant chance (let's say 40%) that during Obama's tenure the violence in Iraq will flare up to such a point that the end of combat operations that the President just declared, won't really be the end of combat operations.

Keep in mind that the withdrawal of the last combat troops leaves 50,000 soldiers in Iraq. I guess they're the non-combat army platoons. Keep in mind also that the withdrawn troops are just across the border in Kuwait, available at a moment's notice. Maybe they know the risk of declaring something over too soon is dangerous.

Then again, if liberals were amenable to learning from history (in this case George Bush's early declaration of victory in Iraq), they'd be conservatives.

Hey, is Al-Qaida in Iraq? Who knew?

According to the Department of Defence,

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2010 – The suspected Baghdad “sharia emir” for al-Qaida in Iraq was killed today during a combined security operation in the northern part of the Iraqi capital, military officials reported.

A sharia emir is responsible for enforcing radical religious rules imposed by groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Acting on a warrant issued by an Iraqi judge, Iraqi forces and U.S. advisors searched for Sinan, also known as Mohannad Rahman Salim Muhaymid al-Ani, who is believed to be one of the primary approval authorities for al-Qaida in Iraq attacks and assassinations in the Baghdad region.

...

In other news from Iraq, Iraqi forces captured a suspected regional al-Qaida in Iraq leader during a combined operation today in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.

Iraqi forces and U.S. advisors arrested a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq leader, who is believed to have been involved in planning multiple coordinated vehicle-borne bombing attacks against the Iraqi government, several of which have taken place in Baghdad.

In case anyone still believes they aren't there.

Iraqi Al-Qaida Terror Leader Killed

From the US Armed Forces web site;

Acting upon a warrant issued by an Iraqi judge, Iraqi forces and U.S. advisors stopped a vehicle and searched several buildings for Khalid Muhammad Hasan Shallub al-Juburi, also known as Shaykh Khalid, who is a suspected leader for the terrorist group in northern Iraq.

He is believed to have played an integral role in approving AQI operations, including attacks against the Iraqi people before and during the recent parliamentary elections, officials said.

One more win for the good guys.

Hey Joe, Where You Going With That Gun In Your Hand?

Just a quick compare and contrast on Joe Biden then and now.  Watch as he turns from surge fail to surge success before your eyes as if it were a David Blaine illusion.


From Huffington Post on April 5, 2008 - less than 2 years ago saying the surge was a failure.

WASHINGTON — A leading Democrat on Saturday declared last year's troop buildup in Iraq a failure. Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the military push didn't succeed because U.S. troops remain committed there in large numbers and political reconciliation has not been achieved. "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically," said Biden, D-Del., in this week's Democratic radio address. "Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon."

And this week from Face The Nation, (HT EconomyPolitics), saying how great a success Iraq has been, trying to take credit for Democrats and followed by a bonus clip from 2007 with Biden arguing against the surge.

I think he beat Kerry on the flip flop meter - he was against the surge before he was disappointed in it's results before he was for taking credit for it.

Cheney Unleashed

I've heard mention that former Vice President Cheney should consider quieting down instead of going after President Obama.

The question is, why should he?


It goes beyond being tit-for-tat in the war over the war. And yes, I'm calling "they started it" on Iraq. Cheney most importantly, just makes some good points. Points worth making.



It doesn't hurt politically for Republicans to point out the problems with Democratic national security weaknesses either.

So why stop? Just because the Democrats and the press think he's being too harsh? Awwww. Get a backbone. If you can dish it out but not take it, that makes you a both a coward and a bully. Is that the image Democrats want for themselves? If so, then keep complaning - it only helps your opposition's cause.