Jeffrey Friedman wrote a somewhat interesting essay on how voters judge hawkish posturing from political leaders, but this section is nonsense:
Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 provides a good example of how it is hard to evaluate a policy’s wisdom [bold mine-DL] – but simple to spot resolve. After Trump ordered the strike, many observers accused him of recklessly risking war with Tehran. Others said that the United States should have targeted Soleimani long ago and that the strike would help deter Iran from challenging the United States in the future. Even in retrospect, it is difficult to determine whether Trump’s decision reflected good judgment [bold mine-DL]. Iran’s retaliation for the Soleimani strike was less severe than many people predicted. It is thus possible that Trump carefully analyzed the situation [bold mine-DL] and accurately understood that his choice to kill Soleimani was not as dangerous as critics claimed. But it is also possible that Trump had no idea how Tehran would react and nonetheless opted to roll the dice without good reason – and happily lucked out.
There are few Trump decisions that have been been easier to judge as reckless and unnecessary than the decision to kill Soleimani. By all accounts, Trump ordered the assassination because it was the most aggressive option he was given, and because he was responding to pressure from Senate Republicans whose support he needed at his first impeachment trial. That is based on numerous reports that came out at the time and in the subsequent weeks and months. Alice Friend, Mara Karlin and Loren DeJonge Schulman wrote about the decision a couple weeks after it happened:
According to multiple news reports, policymakers gave Trump the option of killing Qasem Soleimani as one of several choices, perhaps hoping that including such a dramatic measure would push him toward a middle course; instead, he went for it, reportedly with little forethought or preparation [bold mine-DL].
Read the rest of the article at Eunomia
Daniel Larison is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
WTF?! We take two steps forward and five backwards?!
Trump caved in to Republicans demanding he kill Soleimani. If he is re-elected, he will let Russia’s war in Ukraine go on if he is pressured by enough Republicans to do it.
So many of his fans say he was a peace time president for not starting wars. He continued wars, rolled back trade, travel to Cuba and diplomatic ties with Cuba.
He scrapped the Iran Deal and reimposed sanctions and continued tension with China. He was the first president to favor Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories.
But Trump killed Soleimani because Trump wanted to kill Soleimani.
Every President ends up killing Somebody.
And Trump was no different. But my point was that Trump didn’t need to be talked into anything. He campaigned on bashing Iran. His first state visit was to Saudi Arabia which was an Iran bashing fest. He dropped out of the JCPOA even though Iran was in full compliance. He put the massive sanctions on Iran. He threatened them with nukes. So no, Trump didn’t need to be talked into killing that general.
The main difference between the Democrats and Republicans regarding war & peace is that they want different wars. The Democrats want war with Russia, the Republicans want war with China. Trump hates Iran and China, so I would expect the same evil policies toward China that the establishment Republicans are advocating. And like you said, he hates Iran.
But that all said, Trump is not as much of a war monger as the establishment of either party or as the military/intelligence/industrial complex. That’s one of the main reasons they hate him so much, and they’ve turned supposed progressives into fellow war-mongers by using Trump as a straw man and infecting them with TDS.
But that all said, Trump is not as much of a war monger as the establishment of either party or as the military/intelligence/industrial complex.
Nonsense. Trump Dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2018 than had been dropped in a decade. He also lifted the rules of engagement everywhere, including drones, to make killing easier. He increased our troops in Syria and did a massive artillery barrage and two missile attacks. He sent troops into Somalia and bombed them more than W and Obama combined. Not to mention his killer sanctions, also an act of war. He’s exactly the same as his predecessors and his successor.
OK, let’s just agree to disagree here, because it makes no difference. Trump is a racist sexist xenophobe, and a megalomaniac who steals from his own workers by not paying them, so I’d never vote for nor support him in any way.
International trade is extremely environmentally harmful, so I’m with Trump on that, though we obviously have different reasons for opposing it.
Trump was not a peace president by any definition. However, he’s nowhere near as much of a war monger as the rest of the jerks. That’s one of the main reasons that the establishment hates him. He only really cares about his money and his ego, so of course he won’t stand up to the military/intelligence/industrial complex, but there is a difference between Trump and the rest of the jerks.
“So many of his fans say he was a peace time president for not starting wars.” The problem with his fans is that the “information” they get is really limited as they read nothing but “MAGA” related material and some “Right” oriented MSM outlet articles.
Trump has time and time again shown himself to be a paper tiger. For all his talk of fighting the “Deep State”, he often managed to cave to their pressure. The most positive thing one might say about him (but not necessarily true) is that he does so reluctantly.
Remember:
Paper tigers burn…
Trump didn’t cave to the Deep State’s pressure. He was a willing participant. Sometimes they even had to reign him in. The Syrian missile attacks based on bullshit come to mind. According to Sy Hersch, Trump didn’t even want to give a heads up to Russia but had to be talked into doing so.
Thanks for straightening me out. :-) Perhaps I was trying to be too charitable.
I don’t know if “paper tiger” is the right term. Trump only really cares about his money and his ego, so he won’t stand up for anything else if he gets push back. No way is he going to stand up to the CIA or the military/industrial complex.