Iraq protests

[Cheetah]

The Quds Force is part of the security forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The militias are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a paramilitary wing of the security forces of the Republic of Iraq. Both are shady, but they are part of the state security apparatus of two countries with which the United States is not at war, and one of which is at least nominally its ally. How do you figure those as "valid targets"?

Well, the problem comes from the fact that they're already attacking the US, no? Does that not make them valid targets, even though neither side have declared a war?

 

[Lexicus]

Everyone who were killed were Quds or PMS members, afaik. All valid targets.

By this logic, of course, plenty of people in the US are "valid targets" as well.

 

[Cheetah]

The administration is putting out the line that this was done to prevent an imminent attack by Iran because wouldn't you know how much the real world resembles 24 with Jack Bauer?

I heard stuff about that. No idea how valid it is, but my understanding of the events are:

1. About two weeks ago a US military base in Iraq was attacked by several rockets. One US contractor was killed.
2. The US responded by bombing one of the Iran-backed militias they deemed responsible for the attack. 25 people (as far as I know, all of them members of the militia) were killed.
3. Using the ongoing protests against the Iraqi government as cover, Iran-backed militia then stormed the US embassy disguised as protesters. The US embassy in Iraq lies within the Green Zone of Baghdad – a specially protected area. The only way for anyone to get near the embassy is if the Iraqi guards defending the Green Zone let them through. In addition to this obvious evidence that it wasn’t a normal protest, known leaders of the militia have been identified at the site during the attack.
4. Last night, the Iranian general Soleimani flew in to Iraq to meet with the militias they support. He landed at Baghdad International Airport, and as his convoy was driving on an access road near the airport, a US drone strike hit the cars with several missiles, killing him and several others in his entourage.

It seems to me that both sides are willing to fight, declaration of war or not.

 

[Cheetah]

By this logic, of course, plenty of people in the US are "valid targets" as well.

All active military personnel are valid targets, are they not? Including the entire chain of command?

 

[Snerk]

To quote Al Swearengen: You can't cut the throat of every ********* whose character it would improve.

If every statesman or officer with innocent lives on their conscience are valid targets for foreign assassination, the crap would really hit the fan.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the problem comes from the fact that they're already attacking the US, no? Does that not make them valid targets, even though neither side have declared a war?

How do you determine which parts of the Iranian and Iraqi state security forces are responsible, and therefore "valid targets"?

 

[Cheetah]

I disagree. You're praising utter tokenism as though it's an accomplishment. And no doubt terrorists working for the CIA and Mossad, big and horrid international terrorist groups in their own right that should also be brought to final justice, are sharing in the being lauded for bringing down a terrorist. As I said, it comes down to being about as admirable as one gangster killing another over drug turf.

What's «utter tokenism»?

In many ways relations between countries, especially violent relations, do seem like two gangs fighting each other, yes. How could they not?

 

[Cheetah]

How do you determine which parts of the Iranian and Iraqi state security forces are responsible, and therefore "valid targets"?

Based on the space of possible targets that can be reached, the relative strength or weakness of the opponent, and which political goals one is trying to achieve, I suppose?

 

[Cheetah]

If every statesman or officer with innocent lives on their conscience are valid targets for foreign assassination, the crap would really hit the fan.

But surely you're not suggesting that the lowly grunts are the only ones who should die in armed conflicts?

Tangentially:
Why is assassination frowned upon anyways, while mowing down thousands of common soldiers is acceptable? Wouldn't the first method be a far less horrible way to end a conflict?

 

[luiz]

The Quds force is listed as a terrorist organization by the US, as a side note.

 

[Traitorfish]

Based on the space of possible targets that can be reached, the relative strength or weakness of the opponent, and which political goals one is trying to achieve, I suppose?

"Valid targets" presumably means legally valid, not tactically viable. How do you determine which parts of the Iranian and Iraqi state security forces are fair game, and which are not? If no distinction is made, then is the United States not effectively in a state of war with both Iraq and Iran already?

 

[Cheetah]

If I were Trump, I would claim this was my motivation for doing it. The argument being something like "I am surrounded by warmongers in the US that won't pull out willingly, so I had to do something to make the Iraqis kick us out."

He could also have pointed to all the Iraqis celebrating the death of Suleimani, and claimed they were celebrating his own actions. That's not a chance that will appear often.

 

[Cheetah]

"Valid targets" presumably means legally valid, not tactically viable. How do you determine which parts of the Iranian and Iraqi state security forces are fair game, and which are not? If no distinction is made, then is the United States not effectively in a state of war with both Iraq and Iran already?

I don't know.

How should one deal with a state that doesn't declare war before attacking through proxies? Establish ones own proxies to fight for oneself?

I'm don't even know how one would distinguish an effectively state of war these days anyway. When was the last time a war was declared? Yet many states have fought with their soldiers in many other states over the last 70 years. I know the Norwegian government's excuse was that declaring war triggered many laws around censorship and freedom of speech and whatnot, and therefore they preferred to just refer to it as «intervention» or whatnot.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Quds force is listed as a terrorist organization by the US, as a side note.

The entire Revolutionary Guard is listed as a terrorist organisation, a gendarmerie larger than the entire British Army. This classification was made in April 2019, as part of Trump's escalation of tensions with the Iranian government. It's not a very serious classification.

I don't know.

If you don't know what distinguishes a valid and non-valid target, how do you know the attack was carried out against valid targets?

How should one deal with a state that doesn't declare war before attacking through proxies? Establish ones own proxies to fight for oneself?

Is this a strategic question, or a legal one?

(In either case, I'm not sure the answer is going to be "bomb your own allies, roflmao".)

 

[Snerk]

But surely you're not suggesting that the lowly grunts are the only ones who should die in armed conflicts?

Tangentially:
Why is assassination frowned upon anyways, while mowing down thousands of common soldiers is acceptable? Wouldn't the first method be a far less horrible way to end a conflict?

I don't understand what you're replying to here. Do you think killing Soleimani somehow ends the conflict, or even lessens the likelihood of war and infantry getting killed?

 

[Lexicus]

All active military personnel are valid targets, are they not? Including the entire chain of command?

If the Iranians had assassinated Mike Pompeo in Mexico City would you be saying this?

 

[Cheetah]

I don't understand what you're replying to here. Do you think killing Soleimani somehow ends the conflict, or even lessens the likelihood of war and infantry getting killed?

Doubt it will end the conflict. But I do think the Iranians will be more careful about escalating or pushing things too far, yes. If the US under Trump can suddenly decide on something as unprecedented as this, what would he do if he was reacting to something worse? Send twenty Tomahawks at their residences in Teheran?

In effect, I do think this has the chance of making things more peaceful. It depends a great deal on how Iran decides to retaliate, of course.

But the Iranian regime isn't stupid, and don't want a hot war with the US. Sure they could make life annoying for the US and cause lots of harm in Iraq (and possibly some harm in Afghanistan or Israel, though in the former case they must also guard against the Taliban, and in the latter Hamas doesn't like them anymore, so they'd only have Hezbollah), but they don't have that many resources. What little gains they've made in Syria will be lost, and unless the Iranian people start hating the US more than the people who murdered and locked them up just a month ago, they'd really struggle...

Add to it that Soleimani had great propaganda value before. But after he got taken out by the US, will he still look so grand?

 

[Cheetah]

If the Iranians had assassinated Mike Pompeo in Mexico City would you be saying this?

Assuming Pompeo is in the chain of command, and you were at an active, declared war, sure. (Legally, does the uniformed part matter when someone is in the chain of command?) Soleimani rarely wore his uniform as it was, but he was still a member of the armed forces, and not a politician.

When neither side wants to declare war, but still try to kill each other, things get a bit more muddied, of course. If Pompeo or Trump or some US general got killed by an IED while visiting Iraq, I'd think I'd consider them valid targets, yes.

 

[Cheetah]

Let's face facts here, the US and Iran are going to fight. There's no avoiding it at this point. So if they are going to fight, I'd rather they kill each other one or two assassinations at a time, rather than kill each other by the thousands on a battlefield.

There's not gonna be any hot war, unless the US chooses to. And I doubt Trump or the people around him wants to.

 

[Gorbles]

"these little pot shots"

They bombed an airport to murder a high-ranking dude. What would be your response if that had happened to an American general, on American soil? What would Cheetah's be?