It started when an Iranian proxy militia launched an attack, killing an American contractor and wounding four US soldiers. In response, the Trump administration authorized an attack on a headquarters of one of those militias, killing some 25. This led to the Iranian proxies storming the US embassy in Baghdad, burning some outbuildings, breaching some walls, setting some fires, daubing walls with graffiti, burning tires, and so forth. The Trump administration sent immediate reinforcements, put a flight of helicopters to cover the area, using tear gas and flares to disperse the mob. This hefty response, which shattered the practice of the Obama administration in similar circumstances, led to the withdrawal of the mob.
The very next day, Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian citizen and cabinet official who has been on the list of terrorists since at least 2007, flew into the Baghdad airport and, accompanied by several other leaders and members of various Iranian proxy militias, was preparing to take a motorcade to Baghdad. US Hellfire missiles sent Soleimani and a significant number of other thugs and terrorists to (dare we say it?) burn in hell. These other terrorists were almost as nasty as Soleimani: Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces; and Naim Qasem, deputy secretary-general of the Lebanese Hezbollah, among others.
Abdul Reza Shahlai, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Yemen, was the next one killed, and soon thereafter a convoy of Iranian proxy militias was struck north of Baghdad, although details still remain unclear.
Anyway, the death of Soleimani was universally cheered – no, not really. The Iranian government was outraged, although large numbers of Iranians risked their lives by celebrating his death. Almost every prominent member of President Obama’s inner circle was displeased. Oh, they all agreed that Soleimani was not a good person, and “no one would mourn him.” However, they each added the word “but” to show that now was not the time, or that this will make the situation worse, or Congress should have been consulted, or this was a dangerous escalation, ad infinitum. One even said it was the right decision but “the wrong Commander-in-Chief.”
The current Commander-in-Chief said that he authorized the strike “to stop a war, not to start one.” The death of Soleimani and the numerous others that took place this week probably has saved the lives of thousands of potential victims in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, the United States and who knows where. Yes, as the Democrats fear, the Iranians are likely to attempt to retaliate – but were they not already doing their best to bring “death to America” and “death to Israel?” These terrorists were among the elite leadership, among the most important and powerful terrorists in the world. Their removal is a great step toward eventual peace.
Most of the Democrat candidates have acknowledged how evil and dangerous Soleimani was, but very few of them would have authorized the strike on him. Elizabeth Warren said it was “reckless.” Bernie Sanders adopted the Jimmy Carter-Barack Obama–Neville Chamberlain position of “doing everything I can to prevent a war with Iran.” Pete Buttigieg, once an intelligence officer in Iraq, said, “there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences.” Tulsi Gabbard, also a veteran of the Iraq war, asserted that the strike was “an act of war that did not have congressional authorization.” Tom Steyer said “this wasn’t authorized by Congress and risks a wider war with Iran.” Michael Bloomberg said “given the President’s track record and history of making reckless and impulsive decisions. . . there is every reason to be deeply concerned.” Cory Booker says that the President “has no strategic plan.” Michael Bennet could not bring himself to say that killing Soleimani was the right thing to do. Amy Klobuchar said “the timing, manner, and potential consequences. . .raise serious actions about an escalating conflict.” The progressive left has a long, long history of believing that any reaction Republican presidents take to defend the US is “an overreaction,” and to fret about consequences, which almost always means that they would rather maintain the status quo and do nothing, and this week’s events illustrate that point very well.
Our favorite, though, as often is the case, is good ol’ Joe Biden, who considers this “a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region.” More on Mr. Biden’s reaction later.
In other words, everybody knew what a dangerous person Soleimani was, but they all would have found excuses not to do it, which means that those killers who already have killed or injured thousands of people, the majority of whom were Muslims, would still be alive to kill more.
Which brings us back to Mr. Biden, who on numerous occasions as Vice-President under Barack Obama made it clear that he argued against Obama’s decision to take out Osama bin Laden. Mr. Biden had claimed that “only Barack Obama” favored that mission, which, he said, was opposed by himself, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the cabinet, et al.
Well, Mr. Biden was asked if he would have “pulled the trigger” on Soleimani, and he responded with a condescending “Well, we did. Guy’s name was Osama bin Laden.” When asked a follow-up question, “Didn’t you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden,” Mr. Biden said, “No I didn’t. I didn’t.” Condescending and dishonest, and you don’t have to take our word for it, or Mr. Biden’s. Let’s listen to members of the Obama administration: Press Secretary Jay Carney: Biden was “speaking accurately” when he originally said he was opposed to the raid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “. . .Biden remained skeptical.” CIA Director Leon Panetta: “Biden did not have enough confidence that bin Laden was in the compound and came out firmly in favor of waiting for more information.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “Joe Biden and I were the two primary skeptics. . . Biden’s primary concern was the political consequences of failure.” Michael Morrell, Deputy CIA Director: “The vice president was unconvinced about the intelligence and concerned about what a failed mission would do to our relations with Pakistan.” Again, it is one thing to consider valid reasons not to undertake such a mission, and even to oppose such a mission, but Mr. Biden, who now insists he argued in favor of the mission to take out bin Laden, is falsifying that record.
Note for those Democrat candidates who question the timing: If, after a mob attack on the US embassy in Iraq, US intelligence sources find that one of Iran’s top terrorists is meeting in Iraq with several other top terrorist leaders, it is pretty safe to assume that they are not working toward anything positive for US interests or for peace. The fact that the meeting took place in Baghdad should be enough to convince even a Democrat candidate that more trouble was about to be unleashed. We would hope that any US President would have taken the same action as President Trump did and as President Obama did with bin Laden. Wars are won by defeating the enemy, and it is an undeniable fact that this often means killing enough of them that they no longer have the will to fight. Apparently our incumbent President is the only one of the current candidates who understands this.