Democratic politicians can whine about not being notified in advance, but, today, the United States, Israel, the Sunni Arab nations, and freedom-loving people everywhere should sleep a little easier, knowing that one of the world’s most notorious terrorists, Qassam Soleimani, has been eliminated from the face of the planet. Of course, reaction to the news that a terrorist of Soleimani’s stature was taken out by American forces acting under the direction of the President was mixed.
In general the Democratic reaction was along the lines of “Soleimani was an evil man but…” Many elite Democrats warned of destabilization occurring in the region because of America’s actions.
My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/4Q9tlLAYFB
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 3, 2020
When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region. That fear unfortunately turned out to be true.
The U.S. has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we’ve spent trillions.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 3, 2020
Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020
And there are many other examples of this kind of thinking over on the Left.
In an attempt to save some Democratic bacon, Susan Rice went on Rachel Maddow’s show and said that the Obama administration would have done the same thing had they had this kind of intelligence. This is an obvious lie. In 2015, when Israel reported to the Obama administration that it had an opportunity to kill Soleimani, the administration tattled to Iran.
I have one question for all these people. What do you think Soleimani was doing in Baghdad? Why was he there? Do you think he was there to meet with John Kerry for more insights in how to deal with the Trump administration? Or do you think he was looking for a nice spot for his next vacation?
He was there to escalate the attacks on our embassy and on the Americans who are there. Soleimani has been waging war on Americans for decades. He was probably hoping to make an incursion into the embassy grounds and create a situation like what occurred during the Carter administration.
Why did Soleimani stop at other locations in the Middle East before going to Baghdad? He was giving orders for the next stage of his operations to destabilize other governments he was at war with (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, etc.).
Those who criticize the President because they think his actions will escalate tensions should really look hard at what Soleimani was doing. Soleimani was the chief agent of destabilization in the Middle East. An abbreviated list of his terrorist accomplishments can be found here.
While some may think it is idle speculation that he was in Baghdad to escalate violence, there is info available to support this theory. Secretary Pompeo went on the Sunday morning news show gauntlet (three different shows) and expressed such. Pompeo made it clear that America acted on intelligence that a major attack against American interests was imminent. He even stated at least once that the generals reviewing the intelligence indicated that they could be “criminally culpable” if they did not act.
Now one can argue that Pompeo was shilling for the administration. After all, at this point the sensitive intelligence data and sources must be protected. We only have Secretary Pompeo’s word for what was in those reports. However, support for a possible major thrust from Soleimani’s many Islamic terrorist militias comes from another source.
Reuters who is hardly pro-Trump reported that…
Soleimani met with militia leaders in October in Baghdad.
Soleimani ordered stepped up attacks on US targets.
Soleimani ordered more sophisticated weapons into Iraq in October.
Soleimani picked Kataib Hezbollah to lead the attacks.
All of this info comes from people on the ground in Iraq including members of the militias involved.
The escalation of attacks ordered by Soleimani was evident for the world to see. Soleimani’s death was preceded by two days of violent protests by supporters of Iranian-backed Iraqi paramilitary groups. These groups stormed the U.S. Embassy’s perimeter and hurled rocks.
Although this President wants to reduce our world-wide military presence, although this President would prefer to use other avenues to effect change, he did not hesitate to re-enforce the embassy when it was needed. PDJT was not about to allow Soleimani to overrun the embassy. This President was not about to allow another Benghazi to happen on his watch. The rules of engagement have changed.
This was unlike President Obama’s State Department who refused to re-enforce the consulate in Benghazi despite repeated requests for an increased security presence. Even the left-leaning Politifact rates this statement as true. Such actions by Obama’s State Department would have undermined Obama’s statements about reducing terrorism.
This President’s action was unlike President Obama’s attempts at appeasement with Iran. This President’s actions are entirely consistent with his doctrine of protecting Americans. No American is expendable. PDJT is a different breed from anything seen in American politics in the last 50 years. To repeat what was said above, the rules of engagement have changed.
One of the President’s long-term foreign policy goals is that each country needs to be responsible for its own security. To this end he has helped to create the Gulf States coalition. PDJT would like to get America out of Iraq at some point in time. He, along with many Americans, believes that the Iraqis must be responsible for their own destiny. Perhaps these events will help to move the world closer to this result.