Post by michaelw on Jan 4, 2020 3:20:19 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about this.
My own scattered observations:
--I think the fact of Iran's outsized influence in Iraq is very likely a permanent condition (one that the US heavily contributed to, btw). If Trump thinks this can be undone at this point, he's fooling himself. If the idea behind the US strike is that Trump can live with this reality as long as Iran doesn't continue crossing any red lines, and the strike is meant to deter such, then that seems slightly more tenable, IMO.
--Some of the commentary on this event makes me think assassinations have turned into d*** measuring contests to a large degree. Check out this Tweet from Mark Levin, for example:
He's full of S*** IMO, since Bin Laden was just as much of a white whale as Soleimani, if not more so. But hey, I get it, Trump is a peerless mastermind of counter-terrorism.
--Why does the US even bother keeping an embassy in Baghdad? I mean, I know why countries have embassies, but in a city where car bombings take place on practically a daily basis, just seems like the embassy would (predictably) become a magnet for anti-American violence.
--While it might be too soon to know how this will all play out, I think there's at least plenty of anecdotal evidence that killing top people in the Middle East--especially state actors--tends to tip the balance of power toward extremists, rather than the other way. (See, for example: Saleh in Yemen, Gaddafi in Libya, etc. Iraq itself was a major example of this already, even before Soleimani came into the picture.)
Anyway, those are my thoughts (for now). Curious to know what others think.
My own scattered observations:
--I think the fact of Iran's outsized influence in Iraq is very likely a permanent condition (one that the US heavily contributed to, btw). If Trump thinks this can be undone at this point, he's fooling himself. If the idea behind the US strike is that Trump can live with this reality as long as Iran doesn't continue crossing any red lines, and the strike is meant to deter such, then that seems slightly more tenable, IMO.
--Some of the commentary on this event makes me think assassinations have turned into d*** measuring contests to a large degree. Check out this Tweet from Mark Levin, for example:
He's full of S*** IMO, since Bin Laden was just as much of a white whale as Soleimani, if not more so. But hey, I get it, Trump is a peerless mastermind of counter-terrorism.
--Why does the US even bother keeping an embassy in Baghdad? I mean, I know why countries have embassies, but in a city where car bombings take place on practically a daily basis, just seems like the embassy would (predictably) become a magnet for anti-American violence.
--While it might be too soon to know how this will all play out, I think there's at least plenty of anecdotal evidence that killing top people in the Middle East--especially state actors--tends to tip the balance of power toward extremists, rather than the other way. (See, for example: Saleh in Yemen, Gaddafi in Libya, etc. Iraq itself was a major example of this already, even before Soleimani came into the picture.)
Anyway, those are my thoughts (for now). Curious to know what others think.
