The editors of the Wall Street Journal noticed the responses of the Democratic presidential candidates, too:
One of Vice President Joe Biden’s better lines in 2012 was “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.†The crowd at the Democratic convention loved it. This year it sounds like the Democratic campaign theme may be that Iranian terror master Qasem Soleimani is dead and the world is more dangerous because of it.
That’s a fair judgment from Friday’s debate in New Hampshire when ABC’s David Muir asked the candidates “if your national security team came to you with an opportunity to strike, would Soleimani have been dead or would he still be alive under your Presidency?â€
Pete Buttigieg responded: “In the situation that we saw with President Trump’s decision, there is no evidence that made our country safer.†He deplored Soleimani’s “murder and mayhem†but then zagged to the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear pact, and a wounded veteran friend he saw in an airport. Mr. Muir tried again, but the former mayor came down with a decisive, “It depends on the circumstances.â€
Mr. Muir then moved to Mr. Biden, who at least didn’t fudge. “No. And the reason I wouldn’t have ordered the strike, there is no evidence yet of imminent threat that was going to come from him,†Mr. Biden said, before veering to “America First policies†and NATO. No mention that bin Laden wasn’t an “imminent threat†by the time he was killed.
Next up was Bernie Sanders, who listed several of the world’s “very bad leaders†but said we can’t “assassinate†them because that would open the door to “international anarchy.†He said the only recourse is diplomacy.
The answers were revealing and mark a sharp difference in the coming campaign. Mr. Trump shares some of the isolationist impulses of Democrats, but he is willing to use force to kill America’s enemies. The mayhem that critics said would follow the killing of Soleimani hasn’t happened. Mr. Sanders’s answer is no surprise. But Messrs. Buttigieg and Biden missed a chance to show they would act decisively as President to deter those who kill Americans.
When President Obama sanctioned the assassination of Osama bin Laden, he at least had the Authorization to Use Military Force of 2001. By no stretch can that be extended to Soleimani.
Note that they buy the consequentialist arguments, they just have different projections of the consequences. I think that consequences are very tricky things to predict. Can it really be true that the same act may be just or unjust depending on circumstances beyond your control?
Make no mistake. Killing people in the absence of Congressional authorization, legal judgment, or self-defense is murder. Where does it stop? Kim Jong Un? China’s President Xi? Vladimir Putin? Maduro? Erdogan? Angela Merkel?
Subtract Maduro and Merkel, add Duterte and you have list of Trump’s BFFs. Dont see him droning his best buds.
“Note that they buy the consequentialist arguments”
Read the last sentence of our quoted article. I think that any argument made has to at least address the consequences. I dont think it will be sufficient to say it is immoral or illegal. Note that the author implies we are safer because of the killing. Unintended consequences anyone? We already have a bunch of soldiers with TBI it sounds like.
The Saudis are responsible for many more US deaths. Why are we not droning their leaders?
Good intentions are insufficient to make an act that would otherwise be immoral moral. If they were there might never be such a thing as an immoral act.
There’s a saying – “analysis leads to paralysis.†I think when you over-think anything too much clarity is oftentimes lost in the weeds of indecision. Like others have said before, Soleimani was the leader of multiple terrorist militants, having planned or ordered an unknown amount of mayhem all around the ME, for many years. He was considered more dangerous than Bin Laden, having been credited for attacking our Baghdad Embassy, on the heels of multiple other hostile Iranian operations in the region, with supposedly more on the way, focused on harming diplomats and the military. Should more people have suffered or been killed because of “morally†stepping down from an opportunity to take him out, I think another moral lapse would have occurred, and would have to be answered to – explaining “why†to those who lost lives, family members due to sparing Soleimani’s life.
“analysis leads to paralysis.â€
And that’s what you get from people marinated at Harvard. Making decisions “from the gut” does not mean lack of thought, or planning. It’s different, some like to call it cunning, just knowing, subconscious reasoning. It’s real, and not to be ignored as illegitimate.
“Where does it stop? Kim Jong Un? China’s President Xi? Vladimir Putin? Maduro? Erdogan? Angela Merkel?”
Argument by hyperbole. Solly was an active soldier. They took, and take, out our guys routinely. The only reason they don’t go higher in rank is fear of consequences. I don’t think its a moral stance to tolerate this character taking out privates and such, but not the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Eliminate him; its no different than taking out their command and control.
See Dave! I told you! Trump’s guts are now dictating our morality. If he gets food poisoning we are so hosed!
“Eliminate him; its no different than taking out their command and control.”
So why dont we take out their command and control? We arent at war with Iran, so that would be illegal and immoral. If they are really taking out our guys, get a declaration of War.
Steve
Untrue. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. Your argument is that Soleimani was killing Americans which made him a legitimate target. So is Kim Jong Un. So is Xi. Each individual on my list takes things in a slightly more strained direction until you get to Angela Merkel who isn’t an enemy by any stretch of the imagination but certainly isn’t our friend.
I wonder the German’s haven’t killed Merkel for giving away their country to Muslim immigrants that hate them.
Soleimani was manipulating and encouraging terrorism all around the ME, killing anyone who opposed the Iranian regime, especially Iranian citizens who dared to protest for change. I really think throwing in China, North Korean leaders, is not a fair argument in discussing the morally of this one particular target. Again, Soleimani was actively engaged in escalating a war-like scenario with the U.S. This, alone, was more than enough reason to stem the havoc that was sure to follow under Soleimani’s strong terrorism influence.
The list of serious crimes, contributing to governmental unrest, by North Korea and China, is legion. In North Korea’s case it includes terrorism, counterfeiting of currency and goods, drug trafficking, and human trafficking.
And, in the case of Iran, it obsesses on ME dominance, obliteration of Israel, obtaining a nuclear bomb, and taking down all western infidels. While drug and human trafficking are not small crimes, I think Iran’s predisposition to violence, deserves immediate attention focused on containment by radical means, if necessary – similar to how the Coronavirus is being handled by those wanting to avoid world wide contamination and a pandemic.
China, OTOH, encompasses issues that are more long term, ongoing, and evolving. The means to problem solving geopolitical strategies with China also are closely aligned to those of N. Korea. So, measures, like taking off the head of a snake, makes no sense in dealing with these “bad guys,†as it might in elimInating the head terror guy in the ME – Soleimani – with a viable possibility of upsetting the entire ME juggernaut.
“And, in the case of Iran, it obsesses on ME dominance, obliteration of Israel, obtaining a nuclear bomb, and taking down all western infidels. ”
If those were true it would be an issue. Comes closer to describing Saudi Arabia.
Steve