JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[njbill]

As another “history know-it-all” (never claimed to be such), let me add the following. Yes, many commentators are mentioning the Yamamoto killing in connection with yesterday’s assassination of Soleimani. I have no problem with including a reference to Yamamoto in these discussions as there are a few similarities, though there are more, and more important, differences.

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.

The basic facts about Yamamoto are well known. Architect of the Pearl Harbor attack which was on a key U.S. territory. Almost completely destroyed the U.S. Pacific fleet. Congress formally declared war against Japan the next day. The U.S. involvement in the war was 16 months old when Yamamoto’s plane was shot down.

Contrast that with Iran: no war, declared or otherwise (I disagree with you on this, old salt). No attack on U.S. soil. Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

Indeed, it will probably cause exactly the opposite effect. It seems clear that the killing will escalate matters and that Iran will react. Unfortunately, it appears quite possible American servicemen and civilians may be killed in the Iranian response. It also seems much less likely (probably impossible) that there can be any meaningful negotiations now with Iran about anything for the foreseeable future. This is beyond even Jared’s legendary diplomatic skills.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Trump’s Iran strategy of pulling out of the Iranian deal, increasing sanctions, and now assassinating their top military leader is proving to be a disaster that may end up rivaling Vietnam or Bush, Jr.’s Iraq war.

So, in sum, Yamamoto – justified killing of a key enemy officer in the midst of a Congressionally declared war that was intended to help end the war. Soleimani – unjustified killing of a key military officer of a geo-political foe with which the U.S. is not at war that will have the effect of increasing tensions/actions and potentially pushing the countries toward war.

[youthathletics]

Very Informative thread here from a senior fellow at the Carnegie endowment and Hopkins alum:

https://twitter.com/ksadjadpour/status/ ... 95238?s=21

I just saw him in a meeting while working at Carnegie Endowment a few weeks back. Thanks for sharing. Certainly pulls on your heart strings when you read how Iran is treating their people protesting, then blaming the US as a scapegoat b/c of the sanctions to clean up their act. Seems more proof that the ME arena is just eff'd all around. Seems its a lose-lose situation now matter what effort you put forward. Civility and sanctions do not work and neither does war. What the heck is wrong with this region.

[old salt]

Hint : Esper & pre-emptive

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/espe ... s-n1109631

Esper: U.S. could 'take pre-emptive action' if Iran prepares new attacks
"We will take pre-emptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

Jan. 2, 2020, 2:16 PM EST

The United States could take pre-emptive military action if it gets sufficient warning that Iran or its proxy forces are planning further strikes on U.S. interests in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Thursday.

"We're prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon, citing a series of violent attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq in recent months by Iran-supported militia groups.

The United States has "indications" that more Iranian provocations may be in the offing, Esper suggested without providing details.

"If that happens, then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," he added.

For history know-it-alls

As opposed to random know-it-alls, like you?

Yammamoto was a naval commander in an active war zone in the Solomons leading a country Congress had declared WAR on 18 months previously after an attack on Pearl Harbor where, at least one Naval Flag officer was killed plus 1,000s of military personnel.

Last time I checked, Congress had not declared war on Iran or any other country. In fact, the Executive Branch has not even requested such a declaration. In fact, the last time Congress declared war at the request of a President was December 8, 1941 (just over 79 years ago).

Feel free to make your points about this situation but without the bogus historical references.

Both were brilliant & inspirational military leaders, killed at key times in a war (& yes -- we are & have been at war with Iran).

Thank you Prof Know-It-All. The master of irrelevant minutia, proffered as relevant distinction.

So say you Mr. Wing it. No wonder you are all in on IMPOTUS.
We won in the Pacific with overwhelming force and superior strategy. The fact that Nimitz had to approve the strike tells me they considered other items like the possibility that the operation, if successful, might inform the Japanese that their naval codes had been breached. Also was a tricky route and distance which required Army P-38 Lightnings based in Guadalcanal with drop tanks to get to the target in the roundabout fashion to avoid detection. No denying its affect on Japanese morale but it still took over 2+ years to complete victory.

You are merely a keyboard genius copying and pasting stuff from elsewhere to support your views. Tucker Carlson is on line 2 for you.

Thanks Prof Know-It-All. Very impressive & totally irrelevant to the obvious analogy of two military leaders.
Save you gratuitous tutorials. We're all impressed with your grasp of the arcane.
I'll stick with VDH & Sir John Keegan for big picture analysis.

[Trinity]

Remember when Trump drew on a weather map with a sharpie to invent a hurricane warning and then made officials say the warning was real? Remember his massive Inauguration? Share the intel with bipartisan Congress and we’ll believe it.

[old salt]

Speaking of VDH, this just in :

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/i ... analytics/

For all the current furor over the death of Qasem Soleimani, it is Iran, not the U.S. and the Trump administration, that is in a dilemma. Given the death and destruction wrought by Soleimani, and his agendas to come, he will not be missed.

Tehran has misjudged the U.S. administration’s doctrine of strategic realism rather than vice versa. The theocracy apparently calculated that prior U.S. patience and restraint in the face of its aggression was proof of an unwillingness or inability to respond. More likely, the administration was earlier prepping for a possible more dramatic, deadly, and politically justifiable response when and if Iran soon overreached.

To retain domestic and foreign credibility, Iran would now like to escalate in hopes of creating some sort of U.S. quagmire comparable to Afghanistan, or, more germanely, to a long Serbian-like bombing campaign mess, or the ennui that eventually overtook the endless no-fly zones over Iraq, or the creepy misadventure in Libya, or even something like an enervating 1979-80 hostage situation. The history of the strategies of our Middle East opponents has always been to lure us into situations that have no strategic endgame, do not play to U.S. strengths in firepower, are costly without a time limit, and create Vietnam War–like tensions at home.

But those wished-for landscapes are not what Iranian has got itself into. Trump, after showing patience and restraint to prior Iranian escalations, can respond to Iranian breast-for-tat without getting near Iran, without commitments to any formal campaign, and without seeming to be a provocateur itching for war, but in theory doing a lot more damage to an already damaged Iranian economy either through drones, missiles, and bombing, or even more sanctions and boycotts to come. If Iran turns to terrorism and cyber-attacks, it would likely only lose more political support and risk airborne responses to its infrastructure at home.

Iran deeply erred in thinking that Trump’s restraint was permanent, that his impeachment meant he had lost political viability, that he would go dormant in an election year, that the stature of his left-wing opponents would surge in such tensions, and that his base would abandon him if he dared to use military force.

There are several Iranian choices, but they are apparently deemed unattractive by the regime.

In a logical world, Iran could agree to revisit non-proliferation talks. But that for now would be too humiliating for the regime, a huge letdown after its prior bonanza of the Iran Deal. Any future negotiations would require snap inspections over the entire country, 100 percent transparency, and provisions about missiles and terrorism that would not lead to a deliverable Iranian bomb and therefore would seem an intolerable regression after the American giveaway of 2015.

Iran might go quiet for a while, and then revert to its past less dramatic provocations. But the clock was already ticking from the sanctions. Tehran at least felt that the status quo was synonymous with its eventual disintegration and so in desperation hoped to trigger something or other that could lead to Trump’s political emasculation and a political reprieve.

We are now in an election year. Iran yearns for a return of the U.S. foreign policy of John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, the naïveté that had proved so lucrative and advantageous to Iran prior to 2017.

Yet it is hard to see how Trump, if he is careful and selective in his responses to future Iranian escalations, will be damaged politically. His base, of course, and all Americans, quite rightly do not want another war even remotely resembling endless Middle East conflicts perceived as fought for great game dramas. But disproportionate one-off air responses in response to Iran’s future attacks would not require U.S. ground troops or likely not risk a general Middle East war. And they would do Iran’s assets real damage.

The current exchange is surreal in that it may be the first Middle East crisis in modern history in which neither oil nor the fury of the Arab world at U.S. military action is at least for now an overriding strategic consideration. The world has adjusted to Iran’s oil being off-market. The U.S. is nearing energy independence. Our rivals like China are the most concerned over tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. If Hezbollah strikes Israel, the counter response would be overwhelming — and quietly also quite welcome in most Arab capitals.

There are no more neoconservatives of influence in Washington. Despite claims otherwise, they have zero influence over Trump.
Most are now fervent and bitter anti-Trump partisans. This past year, they could not decide whether Trump was a “Twitter tiger” appeaser or a provocative and dangerous bull in the Middle East china shop.

We are told his unpredictability creates “confusion,” but confusion and unpredictability are not always a disadvantage. In this case, both North Korea and China are both carefully calibrating U.S. reactions and are not quite sure what’s next.

Trump’s base is nationalist-populist and Jacksonian, not merely doctrinaire isolationist. “Don’t tread on me” translated into 2020 terms means something like “live and let live — or else.” If Iran hits the U.S. first, then the U.S. would shrug and hit Iran back harder — without any grand notions of preemption, ideological nation-building, regime-change agendas, ground wars, or larger policing commitments to international or allied interests. After the recent furor over Turkey in Syria, Trump’s base accepts that he is backing out of the Middle East firing, not firing to get in. How strange that his progressive opponents damned Trump for not exercising preemptive choices in Turkey to protect third parties, and damned him more for taking reactive action in Iraq to protect Americans.

In sum, a weaker Iran foolishly positioned itself into the role of aggressor, at a time of a shot economy, eroding military strength, waning terrorist appendages abroad, and little political leverage or wider support. China and Russia are confined to hoping the U.S. is somehow, somewhere bogged down. Europe will still lecture on the fallout from canceling the Iran Deal, but quietly welcomes the fact that Iran is weaker than in 2015 and weaker for them is far better. China wants access to Middle East oil. Russia has never objected to a major producer having its oil taken off the world market. Moscow’s Iranian policies are reductionist anti-American more than pro-Iranian.

The current Iranian crisis is complex and dangerous. And by all means retaliation must be designed to prevent more Iranian violence and aggression rather than aimed at a grandiose agenda of regime change or national liberation. But so far the Iranians, not the U.S., are making all the blunders.

[MDlaxfan76]

Remember when Trump drew on a weather map with a sharpie to invent a hurricane warning and then made officials say the warning was real? Remember his massive Inauguration? Share the intel with bipartisan Congress and we’ll believe it.

Nah, VDH says it's cool, so good enough.

[old salt]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

[jhu72]

Remember when Trump drew on a weather map with a sharpie to invent a hurricane warning and then made officials say the warning was real? Remember his massive Inauguration? Share the intel with bipartisan Congress and we’ll believe it.

The decision to kill Soleimani

Reading the article if the timeline is correct, there is no way Trump considered for even one second some special new intel signaling anything imminent. Just more lies and BS from these liars.

One Dem is now claiming they were debriefed today by Pence. Useless as teats on a bull. The democrats will be holding hearings of the intel community. They will find there was no new intel.

Trump is a war criminal - his actions were outside the law.

[jhu72]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

More BS there boner boy.

[njbill]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

Well, we disagree on whether it was justified. But unfortunately I would bet the farm that it will cause, not prevent, further loss of U.S. lives. The Iranians knew he lived on the edge and had for a long time. They already have named his replacement who has been trained by the master for years. It seems quite likely Soleimani's agenda will be carried on by his successor who has now been effectively given carte blanche to respond.

Interesting that VDH wrote at some length about many of the relevant issues, yet he never said he approved of Trump's decision or that it was the right one.

[old salt]

Remember when Trump drew on a weather map with a sharpie to invent a hurricane warning and then made officials say the warning was real? Remember his massive Inauguration? Share the intel with bipartisan Congress and we’ll believe it.

The decision to kill Soleimani

Reading the article if the timeline is correct, there is no way Trump considered for even one second some special new intel signaling anything imminent. Just more lies and BS from these liars.

One Dem is now claiming they were debriefed today by Pence. Useless as teats on a bull. The democrats will be holding hearings of the intel community. They will find there was no new intel.

Trump is a war criminal - his actions were outside the law.

Take the boner out of your eye & read what you linked. Solemani green lighted the series of rocket attacks attacks on US citizens in Iraq prompting Trump to green light taking out Soleimani when the opportunity presented itself.

[old salt]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

Well, we disagree on whether it was justified. But unfortunately I would bet the farm that it will cause, not prevent, further loss of U.S. lives. The Iranians knew he lived on the edge and had for a long time. They already have named his replacement who has been trained by the master for years. It seems quite likely Soleimani's agenda will be carried on by his successor who has now been effectively given carte blanche to respond.

Interesting that VDH wrote at some length about many of the relevant issues, yet he never said he approved of Trump's decision or that it was the right one.

...neither have I. Just analyzing what's happening.
You may be underestimating the significance of Soleimani & the availability of a worthy successor.

[Typical Lax Dad]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

Well, we disagree on whether it was justified. But unfortunately I would bet the farm that it will cause, not prevent, further loss of U.S. lives. The Iranians knew he lived on the edge and had for a long time. They already have named his replacement who has been trained by the master for years. It seems quite likely Soleimani's agenda will be carried on by his successor who has now been effectively given carte blanche to respond.

Interesting that VDH wrote at some length about many of the relevant issues, yet he never said he approved of Trump's decision or that it was the right one.

...neither have I. Just analyzing what's happening.
You may be underestimating the significance of Soleimani & the availability of a worthy successor.

Do you approve Mr. Trump’s actions?

[Kismet]

Hint : Esper & pre-emptive

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/espe ... s-n1109631

Esper: U.S. could 'take pre-emptive action' if Iran prepares new attacks
"We will take pre-emptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

Jan. 2, 2020, 2:16 PM EST

The United States could take pre-emptive military action if it gets sufficient warning that Iran or its proxy forces are planning further strikes on U.S. interests in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Thursday.

"We're prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon, citing a series of violent attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq in recent months by Iran-supported militia groups.

The United States has "indications" that more Iranian provocations may be in the offing, Esper suggested without providing details.

"If that happens, then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," he added.

For history know-it-alls

As opposed to random know-it-alls, like you?

Yammamoto was a naval commander in an active war zone in the Solomons leading a country Congress had declared WAR on 18 months previously after an attack on Pearl Harbor where, at least one Naval Flag officer was killed plus 1,000s of military personnel.

Last time I checked, Congress had not declared war on Iran or any other country. In fact, the Executive Branch has not even requested such a declaration. In fact, the last time Congress declared war at the request of a President was December 8, 1941 (just over 79 years ago).

Feel free to make your points about this situation but without the bogus historical references.

Both were brilliant & inspirational military leaders, killed at key times in a war (& yes -- we are & have been at war with Iran).

Thank you Prof Know-It-All. The master of irrelevant minutia, proffered as relevant distinction.

So say you Mr. Wing it. No wonder you are all in on IMPOTUS.
We won in the Pacific with overwhelming force and superior strategy. The fact that Nimitz had to approve the strike tells me they considered other items like the possibility that the operation, if successful, might inform the Japanese that their naval codes had been breached. Also was a tricky route and distance which required Army P-38 Lightnings based in Guadalcanal with drop tanks to get to the target in the roundabout fashion to avoid detection. No denying its affect on Japanese morale but it still took over 2+ years to complete victory.

You are merely a keyboard genius copying and pasting stuff from elsewhere to support your views. Tucker Carlson is on line 2 for you.

Thanks Prof Know-It-All. Very impressive & totally irrelevant to the obvious analogy of two military leaders.
Save you gratuitous tutorials. We're all impressed with your grasp of the arcane.
I'll stick with VDH & Sir John Keegan for big picture analysis.

You act like VDH has the two torah tablets from Mount Sinai. You two deserve one another languishing in your own grandiose figment strategies. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts (which are not there in this case). Have a good weekend, Macarthur.

[old salt]

My problem is with the suggestion that the Soleimani killing was as justified as was Yamamoto’s. It wasn’t by any reasonable criterion.
Yamamoto was an enemy combatant; Soleimani was not.

Yamamoto’s killing was intended to help end the war by decapitating Japan’s military leadership. The Japanese were in no position to escalate anything or respond in any meaningful way as they already were engaged in all-out war.

The purpose of Soleimani’s killing was what? Still not clear. No one believes anything coming out of the Trump administration these days so I give little to no credence to the official read out. To prevent an imminent attack? Even if something was in the works, anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject (the ME “know-it-alls”) understands killing Soleimani won’t prevent anything. Next man up.

In calmer times, the Iranian people actually have a fair amount of affection for Americans. But now public opinion has almost certainly been galvanized against the Great Satin.

Soleimani was the most effective surviving global terrorist. He long ago earned his ticket to paradise. The recent attacks on US forces & citizens in Iraq are directly linked to him. He, & his confederates who departed with him, were reportedly planning further such attacks. It was a perfectly justifiable decision, at an opportune time, to prevent further loss of US lives.

Well, we disagree on whether it was justified. But unfortunately I would bet the farm that it will cause, not prevent, further loss of U.S. lives. The Iranians knew he lived on the edge and had for a long time. They already have named his replacement who has been trained by the master for years. It seems quite likely Soleimani's agenda will be carried on by his successor who has now been effectively given carte blanche to respond.

Interesting that VDH wrote at some length about many of the relevant issues, yet he never said he approved of Trump's decision or that it was the right one.

...neither have I. Just analyzing what's happening.
You may be underestimating the significance of Soleimani & the availability of a worthy successor.

Do you approve Mr. Trump’s actions?

I don't know enough yet to have an opinion. It depends on what the intel says about the situation inside Iraq -- what's the likely response of the various Iraqi factions in the govt, military & population. Where are the US citizens & forces in Iraq & how vulnerable are they ? Ditto for Syria & Lebanon. I'm reasonably confident about the rest of our forces in the ME, given the added forces & capabilities we've been sending in since Iran began escalating.

I'm confident the Chain of Command factored all this into their recommendations to the CinC. I can wait to learn the details.

[njbill]

You may be underestimating the significance of Soleimani & the availability of a worthy successor.

Possibly, but even if the successor is not as charismatic or strategically skilled, he still can do a lot of damage, especially now that he has all of Iran fully behind him and thirsting for revenge.

It remains to be seen whether Trump has pulled the pin on the grenade. That's a scary thought.

[old salt]

Hint : Esper & pre-emptive

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/espe ... s-n1109631

Esper: U.S. could 'take pre-emptive action' if Iran prepares new attacks
"We will take pre-emptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

Jan. 2, 2020, 2:16 PM EST

The United States could take pre-emptive military action if it gets sufficient warning that Iran or its proxy forces are planning further strikes on U.S. interests in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Thursday.

"We're prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon, citing a series of violent attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq in recent months by Iran-supported militia groups.

The United States has "indications" that more Iranian provocations may be in the offing, Esper suggested without providing details.

"If that happens, then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives," he added.

For history know-it-alls

As opposed to random know-it-alls, like you?

Yammamoto was a naval commander in an active war zone in the Solomons leading a country Congress had declared WAR on 18 months previously after an attack on Pearl Harbor where, at least one Naval Flag officer was killed plus 1,000s of military personnel.

Last time I checked, Congress had not declared war on Iran or any other country. In fact, the Executive Branch has not even requested such a declaration. In fact, the last time Congress declared war at the request of a President was December 8, 1941 (just over 79 years ago).

Feel free to make your points about this situation but without the bogus historical references.

Both were brilliant & inspirational military leaders, killed at key times in a war (& yes -- we are & have been at war with Iran).

Thank you Prof Know-It-All. The master of irrelevant minutia, proffered as relevant distinction.

So say you Mr. Wing it. No wonder you are all in on IMPOTUS.
We won in the Pacific with overwhelming force and superior strategy. The fact that Nimitz had to approve the strike tells me they considered other items like the possibility that the operation, if successful, might inform the Japanese that their naval codes had been breached. Also was a tricky route and distance which required Army P-38 Lightnings based in Guadalcanal with drop tanks to get to the target in the roundabout fashion to avoid detection. No denying its affect on Japanese morale but it still took over 2+ years to complete victory.

You are merely a keyboard genius copying and pasting stuff from elsewhere to support your views. Tucker Carlson is on line 2 for you.

Thanks Prof Know-It-All. Very impressive & totally irrelevant to the obvious analogy of two military leaders.
Save you gratuitous tutorials. We're all impressed with your grasp of the arcane.
I'll stick with VDH & Sir John Keegan for big picture analysis.

You act like VDH has the two torah tablets from Mount Sinai. You two deserve one another languishing in your own grandiose figment strategies. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts (which are not there in this case). Have a good weekend, Macarthur.

Laurence Tribe & Max Boot join the Brookings Institute as Soleimani : Yamamato fan boys. ..
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1213170454711721986

[Kismet]

Keegan died in 2012 so I doubt he has an opinion on the current state of affairs

[tech37]

You may be underestimating the significance of Soleimani & the availability of a worthy successor.

Possibly, but even if the successor is not as charismatic or strategically skilled, he still can do a lot of damage, especially now that he has all of Iran fully behind him and thirsting for revenge.

It remains to be seen whether Trump has pulled the pin on the grenade. That's a scary thought.

Has anyone considered that this bold response to Iranian aggression (and the leader of) on foreign soil might actually embolden the Iranian people to finally rise up and overthrow the religio-fascist regime?

[old salt]

Keegan died in 2012 so I doubt he has an opinion on the current state of affairs

You were lecturing on WW II.