— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
It's simple physics, right? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction--except life isn't physics. Qassem Soleimani may have been responsible for great quantities of grief and bloodshed--perhaps even that of hundreds of US servicemembers in a role of giving support to militias in Iraq. But unlike targets such as Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who led actual stateless terrorist organizations which were somewhat decimated as of the time of their respective assassinations, Soleimani was a top Iranian general, and that means something different. Even if Quds and the IRGC had been designated as terrorist organizations by the US, it's nonetheless a matter of perspective--to Iran, these are simply their military. It is not unreasonable to expect that Iran will view this as an act of war. That response might look like a direct declaration of war or it might simply resemble terrorist attacks--it's just not unreasonable to expect it.
This Tweet of a clipart flag is part of Trump's response. I assume a further briefing from Sec. Esper should be forthcoming. Sec. Pompeo's long distrust of Iran and probable counsel regarding this act are taken by me to be assumed, and I don't care if I hear from him outside of a congressional hearing.
I feel sheepish. Just days ago, I noted that there was a parallel between the pardoning and lionization of a war criminal with the 1990's black comedy Wag the Dog, which makes me feel a little unprepared for the idea that an actual war might possibly have been floated to deflect from impeachment (as opposed to a staged one, as in the film). However, as the little girl shooter Trump pardoned has hopes of becoming a lifestyle influencer, maybe we are living in wildly optimistic times for terrible people, and Trump hopes that as a "war president", he can avoid a Senate trial altogether. After all, you can easily imagine Pete Hegseth or some similar void/human hybrid meaningfully projecting into a camera that no one could ever imagine the injustice of trying
It isn't so remote, after all.
And if no trial for removal, maybe no election, n'est-ce pas? After all, why change horses in mid-stream?
I don't have a lot of faith in Republicans at the moment to assume they will not fall, lock-step, into the manufactured moment. If this be war, why, why wouldn't they make the most of it? After all, for so many neocons, the desire to go to war with Iran was always the next step after Iraq, and if the pull-out from Iraq by Obama in line with the SOFA set by Bush wasn't a case of bellus interruptus, certainly the Iran nuclear deal was. But by God they kept their bayonets sharp! (Or whatever, I dunno, I feel like a metaphorical Vitamix at the moment.)
For myself, as a blogger who bounced along in 2007, I feel a little challenged--if you were blogging in 2003, what would you be doing? Because that's what you, a
So here's me:
on fox right now responding to the soleimani news: karl rove and ari fleischer pic.twitter.com/y7bAAJpMSq— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) January 3, 2020
I guess ripping on Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove, because son of a bitch, can't any right-winger ever be too wrong to put on tv ever? I can't even try searching for the clip on Fox because watching geriatric monkeys fucking a football has never been my brand of porn. But here we are. With Republicans looking for reasons why this nice clean dirty hit was great and good, and will have no repercussions and filthy godless liberals are shameless monsters for suggesting otherwise.
This tweet is simply drunk partisanship. Gen. Soleimani has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans, and was actively plotting more. This commander-in-chief — any C-in-C. — has an obligation to defend America by killing this bastard. https://t.co/eQmiCgegxS— Senator Ben Sasse (@SenSasse) January 3, 2020
And then again, I could be full of nonsense and Iran won't retaliate with force and we're not in the shit up to our armpits as things escalate in every direction. I can of course, consider such a thing. I just don't know that the Trump Administration considered their alternatives all the way, or saw the potential blowback as a price higher than what they might earn politically. I just don't know that this timing was necessary for any other reason. I don't know how this was necessarily "defensive" at this particular juncture. I have questions.
* Really?
No comments:
Post a Comment