Our big, fun Iraq discussion thread

[Borderland]

If you think a full on war with Iran is what we need right now, then great. Celebrate. This could easily mean attacks against Americans here at home and around the world and spark a major conflict.

Don’t get me wrong, I would gladly have dropped the hammer on Soleimani personally any day of the week given the chance. I’d buy my own ticket. I watched friends killed and maimed by EFP’s in a campaign that he was ultimately responsible for. He’s directly responsible for decades of horror in half a dozen countries. Fuck him and all his progeny until the end of time.

But, Soleimani is a household name in Iran. The hero of the Iran/Iraq war and viewed as the equivalent of George Washington and Audie Murphy had a baby. They WILL do something crazy now. The regime can’t let this go. It will be serious enough that we have to retaliate. And so forth. I can’t see how this act leads to anything good for America long term. I’m glad he’s dead, but personally I’m not willing to sacrifice anymore American blood and treasure into this black hole. Nuke the place from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

P.S. Seriously, if you didn’t know who Soleimani was before yesterday you should probably just STFU. You don’t know what your talking about.

I agree. I think the gloves are off now.

The fact that Soleimani and his cadre were moving about freely in Iraq and setting up actions against US facilities speaks volumes to me about the leadership in Iraq right now. They seem to be moving in a direction which is hostile to the US. Not necessarily all of them but enough to make it a dangerous place to be for the US military right now.

Iran isn't going to take this sitting down. They've been testing the US resolve for awhile. I don't think you do that unless you're willing to escalate.

The action against Soleimani was appropriate but unless the US leaves Iraq in the next few weeks I'm afraid we will be well on our way to a war with Iran. I'm curious to see what Trump does. I think he will do the right thing and get us out of that shit hole before things go south.

[Shoresy]

How will Soleimani be characterized in the WaPo or NYT in the coming days?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Inspirational leader" or "One of the greatest military minds of the 21st century". Probably with a glowing reference to IRGC's work in Syria.

[farscott]

I agree that Iran will retaliate for this; the question is how much and when. For at least another year, attacking the USA or its interests with the current POTUS is a way to get an escalation that the Iranian government/regime cannot survive. American doctrine for decades is that any usage of any WMD against American interests merits the use of WMD weapons in the American arsenal. This POTUS may order a limited nuclear strike if there is any Iranian-sponsored attack even close to 9/11-style in scope. I wonder if the Iranian leadership understands that. This POTUS is not like the previous five or six; he will be sure to lash out with hellfire.

While I believe that American interests are best served in the long term by not tolerating attacks on Americans, proportional responses exist for multiple reasons, the least of which is the support of allies we need to keep things stable. Destabilizing entire regions is another; the last thing we need is another country with a power vacuum.

[BehindBlueI's]

If you think a full on war with Iran is what we need right now, then great. Celebrate. This could easily mean attacks against Americans here at home and around the world and spark a major conflict.

I say this respectfully. Iran isn't leaving us alone no matter what we do. Appearing weak, letting "lines in the sand" get crossed, making even our allies question our commitment to their well-being, etc has only emboldened Iran. I don't know there are any good options, but this was probably the least shitty one.

Edit: and if Gen. Mattis is to be believed, Iran authorized an attack on US soil (that was foiled) long before this "escalation". They would do it if they thought they could get away with it regardless of our actions. Being soft has encouraged them.

[revchuck38]

I agree. I think the gloves are off now.

The fact that Soleimani and his cadre were moving about freely in Iraq and setting up actions against US facilities speaks volumes to me about the leadership in Iraq right now. They seem to be moving in a direction which is hostile to the US. Not necessarily all of them but enough to make it a dangerous place to be for the US military right now.

Iran isn't going to take this sitting down. They've been testing the US resolve for awhile. I don't think you do that unless you're willing to escalate.

The action against Soleimani was appropriate but unless the US leaves Iraq in the next few weeks I'm afraid we will be well on our way to a war with Iran. I'm curious to see what Trump does. I think he will do the right thing and get us out of that shit hole before things go south.

The Iranians haven't been doing this stuff to test American resolve. They've been doing this stuff because they've gotten away with it for the last 10+ years and expected to get away with it indefinitely. IMO, they never thought they'd have to escalate.

They have options for retaliation, especially via the terrorist networks they finance and support. But now that "the gloves are off", they have to factor in the new likelihood of being hit back, and whether that juice is worth the squeeze.

The Iranian government is in a tough situation. They face increasing levels of internal dissension and decreasing levels of hard currency due to the low oil market and embargos. And now they can't poke the bear without getting clawed. They're going to have to think hard about how to go forward.

As for the Iraqi government, they're going to have to decide to fish or cut bait. Become a complete Iranian vassal state or their own country?

[Warped Mindless]

I wonder how many sleeper cells are about to wake up...

[Shoresy]

The Iranians haven't been doing this stuff to test American resolve. They've been doing this stuff because they've gotten away with it for the last 10+ years and expected to get away with it indefinitely. IMO, they never thought they'd have to escalate.

And up until now, the only ones to actually push back on them have been the Saudis... which is nowhere close to the military capability of the bear they just poked.

What comes next for Iran is a "how do we save face" moment (and saving face is extremely important to the senior government leaders). That may come down to a "well, we HAVE to push this to war" or a whole lot of bluff and bluster and probably something minor to show strength (more likely).

If our leadership are smart, they'll do what they can to create a "bluff and bluster" offramp for Iran that doesn't have actual negative impacts for the US outside of appearance/rhetoric. Also, not an easy thing to accomplish. Not impossible, just not an immediate button to push.

[EPF]

...because appeasement and soft sanctions were working so well before. The IRGC has been continually emboldened ever since we got weak on foreign policy. Letting people steamroll you and attack your diplomats overseas is not a better solution. Sometimes you have to stand up for yourself, and if Iran were to retaliate in such a manner that it gave a US-led middle eastern coalition justification to invade Iran it would be the worst decision that regime could ever make.

On another note, the idea that the average Iranian holds love in their heart for Soleimani is a strange concept to me, given the average Iranian's dissatisfaction with their government and the IRGC in particular.

Emboldened? Like killing 800 American Soldiers and maiming thousands over a decade ago without repercussion? Were we “weak” on foreign policy then? When we had hundreds of thousands of troops there under Bush was our foreign policy “weak”? When were we strong on foreign policy?

I believe you also served in the GWOT. You probably remember the days after 9-11 when we wanted justifiable payback. SOF guys wearing NYPD patches etc. That sure got muddy quick......and led us here. We sure fucked that up. Hell it only took us a short 11 years to get the guy last time.

Causing an invasion would be a huge mistake for the regime. No Argument there. I jut don’t see how that wouldn’t also be a disaster for us.

Are we willing to accept something like a car bomb in a major U.S. City over this? Hundreds dead maybe? What will that do to our domestic politics?

The U.S. political leadership, State Department, and Military just spent 20 years demonstrating our total incompetence in regime change invasion and re-construction.

Epic, historic, mind blowing incompetence.

As for the Iranians, there is a deep divide between the young urban people in and around Tehran we see protesting on cell phone video and the “country folk” in small and medium sized cities. Those people support the religious regime. It’s another U.S. State department fantasy that the majority of Iranians want the leadership gone. The Iraqis were going to greet us a liberators right?

My take is that the regime was desperately trying to get us to negotiate sanctions. If that doesn’t work, they believe an attack by us will unite the Iranian people behind them and keep them in power. I hope we didn’t just give it to them.

Just another worthless opinion on the internet I guess 🙂

[Bergeron]

"Inspirational leader" or "One of the greatest military minds of the 21st century". Probably with a glowing reference to IRGC's work in Syria.

Dapper and charismatic! Dapper and Charismatic!!

I worked Counter-IED Stateside from ‘10-‘13. People from my hometown died from IEDs while in Iraq, and the people privileged to posses by-lines write about that piece of filth being “dapper and charismatic”. Got it.

The only regretful thing about that killing was that it wasn’t done sooner.

[TGS]

Emboldened? Like killing 800 American Soldiers and maiming thousands over a decade ago without repercussion? Were we “weak” on foreign policy then? When we had hundreds of thousands of troops there under Bush was our foreign policy “weak”? When were we strong on foreign policy?

I don't know how strong we were on Iran then....as in, directly to Iran, as opposed to the proxy forces in Iraq. The administration has made a statement that they've crossed a line, not just for what they've been doing recently but what they're planning to do.

That is in sharp contrast to what we've been letting them get away with for some time now.

As for the Iranians, there is a deep divide between the young urban people in and around Tehran we see protesting on cell phone video and the “country folk” in small and medium sized cities. Those people support the religious regime. It’s another U.S. State department fantasy that the majority of Iranians want the leadership gone. The Iraqis were going to greet us a liberators right?

From what I understand, Iranians are fed up with their regime and want change, but they're also nationalistic and would 100% be hostile to an American presence in Iran. I haven't seen anyone of importance claim otherwise, though I'm interested in reading your reference material you're using to make your statements.

The only regretful thing about that killing was that it wasn’t done sooner.

About 40 years sooner?