So... rockets that went higher? This doesn't seem like a terribly meaningful difference.Nedoras said:
US-Approved Air Strike Kills Iranian Military Commander Soleimani
- Thread starter thebobmaster_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Technically, there is. A Rocket is dumb, a Missile is smart. The sophistication of warfare is usually what will define it in the present and the future. The more advanced, the more people will take it seriously.Seanchaidh said:
While still bad, I think people wouldn't take the threat as seriously if Iran called some of their military to drive up in jeeps and lob grenades at the bases.
There's also message-sending element to it. Rockets are simple enough most people with access to the resources can build one with relative ease (whether they hit their target is another matter).ObsidianJones said:
Missiles are more complex and generally require some state-backing or training to use correctly, in part because they are manufactured and heavily controlled in order to avoid falling into unintended hands.[footnote]the ubiquity of drone technology will likely change this to some degree in the future[/footnote] For example, the Muhajadeen had RPGs until the CIA gave them Stinger missile launchers to deal with Soviet helicopters. For a non-missile example, the May incident targeting civilian freighters [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2019_Gulf_of_Oman_incident] used sophisticated limpet mines that suggested a state-actor (believed, though never confirmed, to be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.).
In this case, Iran wanted it extremely clear they are the ones who attacked the base rather than some militant group or proxy force, which is their normal tactic when it comes to striking western targets. The relative precision and lack of casualties suggested it was a designed to save face following the attack while minimizing the risk of retaliation or substantial escalation.
Adding the precision of missiles to the warnings ahead of time, I'd say this is evidence they not only weren't trying to kill anyone, they were being particularly careful not to.
Add to that Trump's tweet saying everything is cool, chances are he was told ahead of time that they didn't want casualties.
The administration's response today was to "de-escalate" by saying they're going to put even more sanctions on Iran. It's better than them retaliating violently, but this is going to change absolutely nothing in the region. So "crisis averted" I suppose, only not really.
When bombing mosques and cathedrals has been put on the table, arguably sanctions are de-escalation. I think the US administration knows war with Iran is a political non-starter (at least until 2021), so are probably greatly relieved at the chance to prevent conflict expanding.Nedoras said:
Like I said, I think the assassination was another failure of impulse control from Trump. He couldn't resist the opportunity to act the tough guy, didn't think it through, and suddenly found he had little support and had risked embroiling the USA in some violent messiness that would do it and him do more harm than good.
I mean, we've got to see what Iran does now. I'm not going to say I'm super up on every statement made by the Iranian government, but they seem a lot more focused on US presence in the area than they are the sanctions. And like, they want a draw down of US troops, Trump wants a draw down of US troops, most of America wants a draw down of US troops. Good things may come of this yet.Nedoras said:
Alternatively, they can just go back to sending in "totally not Iran" militias to attack Iran's enemies and nothing will have changed, but with the guy running that operation deceased and Iran getting the US to deescalate in response to their show of force, it's an opportunity for a strategy change.
I don't think your views are accurate. I don't think anything comes down to Trump's impulses or acting like a tough guy. Frankly, I don't think he does anything unless someone tells him to. Sometimes the person telling him what to do isn't who we want it to be, but to think Trump is a loose cannon who just decides "hey, lets off some guy" when he feels like is poor assessment.Agema said:
They've stated that they won't do follow up strikes if the US doesn't retaliate. We haven't retaliated violently, which I imagine is good enough for them. After all, right now the Revolutionary Guard is reporting that dozens of Americans have been killed despite that not happening. They're pushing internal propaganda in order to make it seem like America paid a price in blood. They know they have to do so, because they don't want an open conflict or for this to escalate further.tstorm823 said:
They are focused on the sanctions though. It may not be their number one problem at the moment, but it's been screwing them internally more than they'll admit. The sanctions also have caused them to do a few attacks in the region previously, so you can expect proxy forces to definitely respond to more sanctions at some point. The White House has also stated that diplomacy is off the table, so any chance for change is basically nonexistent. Soleimani's assassination isn't going to change much either. He's already been replaced, and while his capabilities as a commander may be hard to perfectly replicate, you can bet that their proxy forces will be continuing their operations. As I stated the other day, his death gave the hard right in Iran a big banner to rally around. Internal opposition will most likely quiet down for awhile.
I guess I'm saying I'm not optimistic about where this is going. I am glad that more missiles aren't flying though. That is definitely a good thing. I will be shocked if this causes a change in policy within Iran though.
Oh I know it's a de-escalation. I'm glad that open war is off the table, for now at least. I suppose I'm just bitter that any form of diplomacy is off the table too, and things are going to go back to business as usual in the region. In fact considering that some rockets hit the green zone today, I know for a damn fact it went back to business as usual.Agema said:
Agema said:
I present a third possibility: you are both at least partially correct. Or put another way, basically this happened:tstorm823 said:
Trump is a man long accustomed to running a business, where he is the final word on everything. Companies are hierarchical and authoritarian, and single-owner companies are essentially autocracies. I would think it likely that mindset would carry over to government. He's a narcissist, full of his own sense of importance and capability, relishing his dictatorial role on The Apprentice. He admires strongman leaders like Putin and Erdogan. He has preferred minions and yes-men (like his extended family, Barr etc.) as appointees, then there are his criticisms of people like Comey or Sessions over a lack of "loyalty", or that he doesn't think he has a duty to explain himself to the media. These all strongly point to a man who thinks he's the boss and would not be inclined to accept being told what to do. In terms of impulse control, just consider his compulsive Tweeting, his inability to keep on-script. And he does love vicarious military associations (military spending and parades, strongmen leaders, generals in cabinet positions, etc).tstorm823 said:
Aside from the online Tweeting no-one can control him on, in serious policy, Trump has a record of doing sudden and sometimes dumb things. For instance, letting Turkey attack the Kurds in Syria, abortive troop withdrawal announcements,setting up negotiations with North Korea out of nowhere. These are hard to accept as the actions of someone being told what to do: key White House personnel - including major positions like the Secretary of State - seem to be caught unaware of many of these instances, thus they have not been consulted or informed. Furthermore this has kept happening despite constant staff turnover - there's barely anyone consistently in place in the WH. So if there aren't consistent staff or people in the loop, who is this eminence grise? It suggests to me that there isn't one: the president is the loose cannon.
I accept we could synthesise your principle and mine in ways: the president follows guidance, but doesn't get enough guidance from enough or the right people to make a sound judgement. But that's still his fault and still makes him incompetent. He's appointing all these people who'd give him guidance so he's not capable of appointing competent people into high office, and thus he is incompetent. Let's face it, again relating to staff turnover, many of his campaign and presidential appointments have plainly been ill-considered (Scarawhathisface, Flynn, Manafort, Bolton, etc.) and constantly required removal.
Okay, so let's consider what it means if you're right. If the WH is not being run by the president, that also means the country is de facto run by someone it didn't elect - that has alarming ramifications for democratic rule. Secondly, presidential approval is still required, so he's not competent to refuse bad decisions... so he's incompetent.
I think one of the most telling incidents about Trump's competence and attitude is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/feb/25/donald-trump-clashes-with-his-own-trade-chief-in-front-of-chinese-delegation-video
Trump reveals that he doesn't understand the terminology or process of the incredibly important trade deal the USA is negotiating with the world's other great power at his instigation. Lighthizer then explains correctly. Trump of course realises he's been revealed as an ignoramus in front of the global community, and so blusters a response to try to reassert his dominance. In 90 seconds we see that he is a man disengaged with much of the detail he should know for his job, who shoots his mouth off from a position of ignorance, and then aggressively stamps his authority down when challenged or threatened.
Trump reveals that he doesn't understand the terminology or process of the incredibly important trade deal the USA is negotiating with the world's other great power at his instigation. Lighthizer then explains correctly. Trump of course realises he's been revealed as an ignoramus in front of the global community, and so blusters a response to try to reassert his dominance. In 90 seconds we see that he is a man disengaged with much of the detail he should know for his job, who shoots his mouth off from a position of ignorance, and then aggressively stamps his authority down when challenged or threatened.
Ok, but he doesn't relish his dictatorial role because he thinks he's inherently important, he relishes the role because he desires to be important. Like, someone who thinks they are the destined king of the world who can do no wrong doesn't do cameos in professional wrestling. He just isn't that kind of arrogant. Rather, he's the kind of narcissist that lacks good self-esteem and therefore tries to make himself as big and important as he possibly can as a substitute. He's a showman and a crowd pleaser, he doesn't do whatever his impulses say, but rather does what he thinks will please the crowd. He doesn't feel the need to explain himself to the media because pissing off the media plays to the crowd. 30% of Americans are Democrats, and literally every other adult in the country (Republicans, Independents, and definitely anyone in a fringe party) knows the media sucks.Agema said:
I mean...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding
"A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a type of agreement between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral) parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used either in cases where parties do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement."
"In business, an MoU is typically a legally non-binding agreement between two (or more) parties, that outlines terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement, noting each party's requirements and responsibilities -- but without establishing a formal, legally enforceable contract (though an MoU is often a first step towards the development of a formal contract)."
"As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law."
Trump... wasn't ignorant in his own mind? He knew what he was talking about from the understanding of a businessman and probably genuinely thought he was correct. And from a legal perspective, if the goal is to have an agreement expressly be legally binding and enforceable, it likely makes more sense to not call it the thing that can be ambiguous. You're kind of reaching here, Trump's mostly correct. At the very least, the man trying to explain to him that an MOU IS a legally binding contract is just as far off as Trump is by saying it isn't.
You're assuming Trump wants a draw down of US troops. Had he really wanted that he would have continued Obama's (& the rest of the international community's) attempt at appeasement with Iran. Instead he decided to tear down the nuclear deal and push Iran into more proxy conflicts with the US. And what has Trump's response been on the escalation of the proxy conflicts? More US presence.tstorm823 said:
His pathetic abandonment of the Kurdish militias doesn't change the fact he sent even more US troops to defend the Saudi Radicals from Iranian aggression. Apparently Kurds weren't worth US lives but Sunni Salafists are.
And let's not forget that Iran is not doing anything special in the region. They are backing regimes/militias aligned with them to fight regimes/militias aligned against them. Something the UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia do as well. The only difference is that Trump pushed Iran even more against the US than it already was instead of trying to align their interests.
Now maybe this wasn't intentional and maybe Trump truly wants the US to leave the middle east. But that would mean he has shown himself to be too incompetent and blindly spiteful towards Obama to realize he's acting against his own agenda. And personally this should make anyone just as pessimistic about the future involvement of the US in the middle east.
Unfortunately this isn't a business contract, it's an international trade deal and Trump clearly demonstrated he did not understand the process. I can't help but feel he would have known if he paid attention to what government did properly.tstorm823 said:
I think all those people say he's not a details person, ignores briefings, lacks focus in meetings for a reason. Then there's the fact of the first 1000 days in office, he's reckoned to have spent over 300 relaxing at his own properties and over 200 playing golf, and even when he's in office he seems to spend large chunks of the day watching Fox & Friends, bantering about how to deal with the press and tweeting abuse at Swedish children. Maybe he'd know more if he treated it as a full time job.
You forgot the part where the US STILL had troops in Syria. Are they helping Kurds? Nope. They are protecting natural gas plants.generals3 said:
To get troops out, all president need to get over the fact that they can't control resourced in other countries