Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander.

[elleng]

'The death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was reported in Iraqi and Lebanese official media.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi state television reported Friday that the powerful commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, was killed in a strike on the Baghdad International Airport early Friday.

Iranian and American officials have not confirmed the death of General Suleimani.

The strike killed five people, including the pro-Iranian chief of an umbrella group for Iraqi militias, Iraqi television reported and militia officials confirmed. The militia chief, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was a strongly pro-Iranian figure.

The public relations chief for the umbrella group, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, Mohammed Ridha Jabri, was also killed.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/iraq-baghdad-airport-attack.html?

[dhol82]

1. This does not look good!

We live in interesting times.

[TheRealNorth]

2. Just in time to knock this headline from the main news

White House budget official told Pentagon that order to hold Ukraine aid came from Trump, national security site reports.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics/unredacted-ukraine-documents-pentagon-concerns/index.html

[Iliyah]

3. I think many of us who follows the nutso

illegal person in the WH and the F upped administration, cabinet along with the Republicans knew this was going to happen. The constant saber rattling towards Iran. Plus the up coming "fake" trial by the Senate Republicans and more documents coming to light, t-rump needs Americans to look the other way, no matter if people die.

[TomSlick]

4. Troubling.

An attack on an Iranian leader near the Baghdad airport seems to be nothing more than an assassination of a foreign leader of a nation with which we are not at war. If such is the case, it is a violation of several matters of international law. At a minimum, it would be an act of war against Iran.

I would be very interested to read the legal analysis for the strike.

[braddy]

5. Here is an article on this long time top target, written by Gen. McChrystal

https://foreignpolicy.com/gt-essay/irans-deadly-puppet-master-qassem-suleimani/

[TomSlick]

6. Interesting essay.

No one here should grieve for Suleimani. However, note that while he does explain why, note that Gen. McChrystal did not pull the trigger given the opportunity.

I suspect he did not pull the trigger because his JAG told him there was no legal justification for doing so.

[braddy]

7. He says that he didn't pull the trigger in 2007 because it was bad timing, including a firefight

issue. This to me is much more meaningful than taking out Bin Laden, this guy was not only the top terrorist leader he was a possible next president of Iran.

"There was good reason to eliminate Suleimani. At the time, Iranian-made roadside bombs built and deployed at his command were claiming the lives of U.S. troops across Iraq. But to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately. By the time the convoy had reached Erbil, Suleimani had slipped away into the darkness.

These days, he still operates outside the spotlight. Suleimani has grown from a military commander into a ghostly puppet master, relying on quiet cleverness and grit to bolster Iran’s international influence. Suleimani has grown from a military commander into a ghostly puppet master.His brilliance, effectiveness, and commitment to his country have been revered by his allies and denounced by his critics in equal measure. What all seem to agree on, however, is that the humble leader’s steady hand has helped guide Iranian foreign policy for decades—and there is no denying his successes on the battlefield. Suleimani is arguably the most powerful and unconstrained actor in the Middle East today. U.S. defense officials have reported that Suleimani is running the Syrian civil war (via Iran’s local proxies) all on his own."

[TomSlick]

8. That really doesn't make sense.

There is no potential for a fire fight in a drone strike. I strongly suspect that "the contentious politics" is McChrystal-speak for the JAGs didn't like it.

[braddy]

9. It isn't a detailed description of the 2007 night, it is merely a 2019 few words mention of it as he

gets to his real reporting on the top terrorist.

[Igel]

10. Probably.

But there are questions.

Was he arriving or departing? Or just hanging out?

Was he there with somebody that was a target? Was it known that Qassim-Suleimani was there.

A report that says, "Trump personally authorized the attack on Suleimani" is actually two-way ambiguous between "he gave the order; along with the intended target, the attack wound up hitting Suleimani" and "he gave the order to target Suleimani".

It's hard to not resolve ambiguity in the most convenient way without even noticing that there is ambiguity. Unless you're sort of odd and your default mode is to look for it as a form of entertainment. (Like always asking with a claim, whether I like it or not, "What kind of evidence could weaken this claim and where would I find it?" For this, thank my graduate department proseminar professor, now emerita. I personally find that just asking the question often jogs a bit of information loose and causes me to realize that a claim I would dearly like to be true is, in fact, not all that solid.)