SABRES 0311

Declared war, no. Armed conflict/low intensity conflict, seems like forever. Oceania is out around Australia.

@LTS To address your on topic comment. I have to know what the actual threat was. Suleimani could serve as a point of deconfliction and coordination if the threat involved multiple forces. If it was a suicide bomb attack through a proxy his role is almost none as the goal would be to minimize Iranian footprint. The morale piece could backfire and strengthen Iranian resolve. The goal though would be to demonstrate capability to reduce fighting spirit. It’s an either/or situation. You had me until the very end.

Yes you have the responsibility to call it out. Therefore you have the responsibility to set the example. I’m pretty sure you said people who support Trump support racism and such. Well I support Trump and I do not support racism despite what you think you know about me. Take it how you want but I don’t think it promotes what I thought this board was for. I guess I’ll move on.

You invoke God as in God’s children in a previous post but pass judgement like that. A general does not execute but provides the authority and concurrence for the operation. They also serve as the liaison to civil authorities. No doubt there are subordinates but removing him I would think has an affect on military moral, the planning process and forces a subordinate into the role likely with less experience. I’m not the one saying someone was being condescending. I’m the one accused of being condescending and for good reason. That guy told me to stop trying to change the subject. In reality I was responding to other posters, not him. Not sure why you quoted me but I don’t see where you are the expert on what is condescending. You label all Trump supporters as supporters of hate and bigotry without even knowing them.

I don’t think Iran missed their mark. Iran does not want to escalate things. War is never a good thing. I agree with you on that. I also agree Trump fired the first shot on this one. Time will tell if it was justified. I think Suleimani and the Quds Force should’ve been addressed under the previous two administrations. Both knew what was going on. Both helped set the conditions in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. As of right now we removed Al Baghdadi and Suleimani and received a salvo of a dozen missiles with no U.S. casualties. Wars will continue for the foreseeable future. I see Iran’s threats to hit us in the U.S. as a soft acknowledgment they are state sponsors of terrorism. You don’t play nice with people like that and you sure as hell don’t walk on eggshells. I don’t think you should be accusing me of being delusional like you did when you seem to have no concept of what is happening.

There you go. CNN reports 10 IRGC rockets fired at Al Assad Air Base. Iran says 10s. One CNN reporter remains calm saying this isn’t exactly out of the norm the other lists a lot of what ifs. Just the facts ma’am. Third anchor corrects himself as he was about to call the Suleimani strike an assassination. I wonder why. Iran calls it a crushing response. Gives more threats.

Condescending because you act like I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to multiple posters in succession. Not sure if you’re calling Trump’s actions or my post an act of aggression.

I’m not arguing if the strike was an act of war. I’m arguing that rank/billet automatically make it an act of war. What if Suleimani wasn’t in the car and an Iranian Lieutenant was killed instead? Iran would still call it an act of war. If rank/billet are so important in your classification then what would killing an Iranian Lieutenant be to you?

Pump your brakes superhero. I’m one guy addressing comments from a handful of you guys. I’m not a military lawyer but from what I have read it would be an act of war if it was meant to provoke war. If the U.S. was already engaged in armed conflict even without a declaration of war it would be an act of war. If this was solely the use of offensive capabilities to deter/prevent an imminent threat then I start to lean toward no. If it was in reality an assassination it’s a crime. I have to wait and see what information comes out to make a final opinion. As I learn more about this and if put on the spot I would say act of war against a foreign force we and our allies have been in armed and unarmed conflict with. But you can’t talk act of war without discussing justification. Iran I’m pretty sure has already said they consider it an act of war. I do think they retaliate but not to the extent requiring U.S. invasion.

I could see it either way. Some acts targeting U.S. military personnel in Iraq are attributed to Iran. The biggest difference I have seen is the number of casualties associated. There is a follow on to the definition of assassination which talks about indirect involvement. I can’t remember EO but I’ll find it. Domestically this situation relies heavily on the legalities so I don’t think it gets resolved quickly.

Was the purpose to start a war or to inhibit the command and control of a foreign threat? Maybe from here on out we should just stick to responding to an attack instead of preventing it even if we have foreknowledge. Then we can kill the bad guy after they have killed some of ours. Now if it’s proven that the attack was ordered for purely a political or ideological goal then it’s assassinatiin. Trump should be held accountable for it if so.

So what information that has been released leads people think Trump is trying to start a war? Same people accusing Trump of warmongering said he should’ve kept U.S. military personnel in Syria. A situation with a lot of potential for an international incident with a peer/near peer and a battlespace consisting of multiple foreign forces. When Trump was calling KJU names people said he’s trying to start WW3. That didn’t age well. Why were they saying that then and why are they saying it now? Two reasons, ignorance and narrative.

Considering the Quds Force is designated by multiple countries to include the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Unprovoked? I didn’t know you had access to the national security information detailing the supposed imminent threat. I think you are letting your personal view of Trump interfere with your assessment of events. Thereby painting him as the bad guy and Suleimani and Iran as a victim of unwarranted U.S. aggression.

Trump has people guessing because the administration has not laid out the road to the strike which should be done. Beyond that domestic politics plays a part. One example is people taking to twitter apologizing to Iran. We also have people who ask things like what do we do now if there is an air raid. Nothing, because Iran does not possess the capability to conduct such an attack on the continental U.S. and their allies will not do it on their behalf. Iran will use proxies to sabotage U.S. and allied efforts in the Middle East. They may threaten to block the Strait of Hormuz as well. They know they cannot win a conventional war with the U.S. and an act attributed directly to them would increase the chance of that.

It didn’t work out because the administration chose not to follow through with killing him which may very well have disrupted their command and control as well as ability to coordinate with governing bodies such as the Taliban. Another failure was lack of coordination between intelligence agencies to define the pre 9/11 threat. One of the reasons DHS was created.

I’m still military. act of war (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; Source 18 USC § 2331(4) Additional defining of act of war identifies an act to provoke war. Verbally stated as the opposite reason for the strike. The definition of armed conflict is debated internationally to include the number of deaths associated, somewhere between 25 and 1,000. Therefore one could say we have been in armed conflict with Iran due to the number of U.S. military personnel killed as a result Iranian influence in the Iraq theatre of operations. Then again you could say no. This is important because it helps identify if the kinetic strike was a continuation of armed conflict hence an act of war. Assassination is the killing of a prominent figure for political or ideological goals. In this case Suleimani was not killed to affect politics. The purpose of the strike was to reduce the capability of a foreign force to carry out what we are told was an imminent threat. Therefore, the kinetic strike, unless otherwise proven does not meet the definition of an assassination but rather a preemptive act in the defense of a threat. Trump needs to state what the threat was and define the credibility. This can be done through following four points. History, intent, capability, and ability.

Reducing a country or organization’s ability to execute an attack is defensive. Kind of like how we struck Al Queda training camps and plotted to kill Bin Laden in the nineties. Or like the Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran. Punching a guy in the face because he presents himself as a threat is also defensive. You are using an offensive capability for defensive means. Rules of Engagement as I remember them stated you have the right to “defend” yourself if presented a threat. We killed the commander of the Quds force to reduce a threat. We didn’t invade Iran. Domestically Trump should articulate what the threat was.

He hasn’t gotten us into a war yet. Is it an act of war if the purpose was defensive in nature? If so how? Was it justified?

1. Welcome to the dark side. 2. If there actually was a reasonable expectation that killing Suleimani reduced a credible threat then it was a preemptive strike in defense. If so is it still an act of war? I could go either way. The ball is now on Iran’s court as far as escalation.

Ill roll with it. Trump ordered an act of war against a country calling for our destruction, looking to develop nuclear capabilities, and tied to the deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. With all that extra baggage tied to Iran we wait until there is supposedly a credible imminent threat. Then we kill a commander of an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Problem is in this case it’s an act of war if the action was meant to provoke a war. To date that’s the exact opposite of the stated purpose for the strike.

You mean assassinating the commander of an organization designated a terrorist group by multiple countries? You can’t play a part in killing U.S. service members, shout death to America for decades, threaten to destroy an ally then cry when we drop one or two of your military commanders.

How do you know the killing was meant to start a war? Neither you or I have the reporting that lead to the strike. Neither do reporters. I get anonymous people are saying it was “razor thin” but in order to know the value of that we have to know a couple things. Things like how much of the info did they have access to, is this an analysis or opinion, do the anonymous people actually exist? He just happened to be at the Baghdad Airport when the embassy was attacked? If there was actually a credible threat he was overseeing then killing him reduces command and control thus disrupting planning and execution. All I’m saying is hold judgment on why/how this happened until more comes out.

Not every killing is meant to start a war. Not every general looks at their sole purpose as taking of life. If taking life and starting war was the only purpose of a military and military commander none of us would be here today.

Honestly I don’t know for sure. I think humans in the world today focus on looking for the threat or negativity in situations. It very much played a part in Trump’s election and in the situation we are in today. To be fair both situations are a product of external factors. To answer your question a little better I think it comes down to Iran seeing us as an imminent threat they need to defend against or retaliation out of ego. I ignore Iran’s statements of targeting military sites. Therefore I see a world of possibilities. If I had to guess we will see an uptick in violence between Israel and Palestinian militants. I wouldn’t be surprised if violence increased in Afghanistan as well. I also see increased Iranian military training as a show of force along with verbal threats. Iran, I think, would like to be seen as the victim and maybe wants to entice Trump to authorize another strike. Spun correctly Iran could use it to bring their divided population together and strengthen the regime’s hold.

Boom.