My apologies to Kevin Drum, but I must point out a flaw in his history of the United States. During his analysis of the American killing of the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Qassim Soleimani, deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and a number of others, including four generals in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Kevin suggests …
Escalation of hostilities almost never gets the other guy to back down. It doesn’t get us to back down, after all. Why should we think it will get Iran to back down?
Except it has. In 1983, the United States lost 241 military personnel, and the French lost 58, in an attack by Islamic Jihad. The goal of the attack?
A group called Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombings and said that the aim was to force the MNF [Multinational Force in Lebanon] out of Lebanon.[10] [Wikipedia]
The result? It may be questionable to use Wikipedia to connect action to result, but here it is:
The attacks eventually led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed following the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) withdrawal in the aftermath of Israel‘s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Credit: SSgt Randy Gaddo, USMC – DefenseLINK News, U.S. Department of Defense
And I recall observing at the time that President Reagan’s force had, indeed, been chased out of Lebanon.
My point is not that Drum forgot about this, really, but that, yes, sometimes the application of deadly force can cause another nation to back down – if it’s done properly. There is no generally applicable rule; it’s entirely dependent on the character of the attacked entity. As a colleague I met at the start of my career once noted, the Indians succeeded in chasing the Brits out of India using peaceful resistance because the Brits couldn’t stand the immorality of slaughtering the Indians en masse. There would have been no such moral compunction if the foreign invaders had been Nazis. The United States suffered mass casualties in the attack on the MNF, which was publicly unacceptable; another such incident would have damaged the GOP brand for a generation, because the casualties were a raw reminder of what happened in Vietnam.
So we left, because the GOP was in charge.
Of course, the problem with the current incident is that Trump and his Administration has not displayed competency. That doesn’t mean this won’t stop the Iranians from meddling in their neighbors business, but it really lowers the odds that this has been thought completely through, particularly since we have this report:
When President Trump’s national security team came to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, they weren’t expecting him to approve an operation to kill Gen. Qassem Suleimani.
Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had gone to Palm Beach to brief Trump on airstrikes the Pentagon had just carried out in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia groups.
One briefing slide shown to Trump listed several follow-up steps the U.S. could take, among them targeting Suleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to talk about the meeting on the record.
Unexpectedly, Trump chose that option, the official said, adding that the president’s decision was spurred on in part by Iran hawks among his advisors. [Los Angeles Times]
AL Monitor’s Ali Mamour has a different viewpoint:
The scene was indeed set perfectly. Washington could not have chosen a better time, as after a series of protests from Baghdad to Tehran and Beirut, Soleimani had lost some public support and was seen as part of Iran’s suppression system against people and their free wills. The attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad had also turned the majority of Iraqi political forces and the international community against Soleimani as the highest — albeit unofficial — leader of the PMU. The location turned out to be perfect as well. The strike took place in Iraqi territory, raising questions among the Iraqi public about the reason for an Iranian general being present in Iraq, especially after accusations facing Iran-backed forces of killing Iraqi protesters and abducting many of them. Selecting a quiet place in the airport also prevented the killing of any civilians that might allow Iran to victimize themselves and demonize the United States.
But, in the end, I’m just picking a very important nit; I more or less agree with Drum:
A Talleyrandesque sort of devious statesman might—might—be able to handle the aftermath of this in a way that makes relative peace more likely. Unfortunately, Trump is an idiot who is doing this because he’s obsessed with Benghazi and wants to show his predecessor that, by God, a red line is a red line. He has no idea what he’ll do next.
