Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:51 pm
That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.ggait wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:53 pmAfter all we have seen from Trump for years now, it is just really hard to believe much he says. Or to believe his actions are ever motivated by anything other than what Trump thinks is good for Donald Trump.Sure, that is possible. I just don’t think Trump gave any serious thought to the consequences. Just my opinion.
So when situations like this arise, it is a serious problem that POTUS has zero credibility with most of America and most of the western world. That just was never a problem with any prior president I can think of -- D or R. Most think W and Colin Powell were wrong, not lying or stupid or wagging the dog.
So when reports like this come out, most people think yeah -- I could totally see Trump doing that. And can also easily imagine the Pentagon guys kicking themselves: What moron put the crazy option on Trump's list? Who thought crazy Trump wouldn't pick the crazy option? What the heck!!!
In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump. They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.
Pentagon officials reportedly offered US President Donald Trump a list of other, less-severe options for dealing with escalating tensions with Iran.
He was given the option to strike Iranian ships, missile facilities, or Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq, according to The Times. The officials offered the possibility of killing Soleimani mainly to make the other options seem more appealing, which The Times said is a common tactic US officials take with presidents.
Trump initially elected to strike against militia groups. On Sunday, the US military struck three locations in Iraq and two in Syria that were controlled by an Iranian-backed militia, The Times also reported. But, after protesters supporting an Iranian-backed militia stormed Iraq's US Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, Trump went for the "most extreme" option of targeting Soleimani, the publication reported. By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option.
Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
I mean his own departed guys are the ones who call him an eff-ing moron
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?