Jim Webb vs. Tom Cotton on Soleimani’s Assassination

Jim Webb vs. Tom Cotton on Soleimani’s Assassination

Former Sen. Jim Webb’s op-ed on Trump’s assassination of Qasem Soleimani:

The Washington Post:

“How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong disagreement short of actual war — or for their future actions toward our own people? …Now, despite Trump’s previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the United States’ footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders — in Iraq, Libya and Syria — destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest long-term challenge: China’s military and economic expansion throughout the world. …”

Sen Tom Cotton (R-Israel) also has an op-ed called “The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani.”

New York Times:

“Last week, our military and intelligence services brought justice to Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s terror mastermind. President Trump ordered General Suleimani’s killing after months of attacks on Americans by Iran’s proxy forces in Iraq. These attacks culminated in a rocket strike that killed an American and wounded others, then the attempted storming of our embassy in Baghdad. The first attack crossed the red line drawn by the president last summer — that if Iran harmed an American, it would face severe consequences. The president meant what he said, as Mr. Suleimani learned the hard way.Mr. Suleimani’s killing was justified, legal and strategically sound. But the president’s critics swarmed as usual. After the embassy attack, a Democratic senator declared that the president had “rendered America impotent.” Some Democrats then pivoted after the Suleimani strike, calling him “reckless” and “dangerous.”  …”

Whose foreign policy did we vote for in 2016?

Whose foreign policy did we get during the Trump administration?

Donald Trump sounded like Jim Webb when he ran for president in 2016. He was critical of the Iran Deal. He condemned interventions in Iraq and Libya. He was going to “knock the crap out of ISIS.” He was going to “end the endless wars.” The overwhelming impression that swing voters got from Trump was that he was going to tie up some loose ends like ISIS and pull American troops out of the Middle East while Hillary was the war hawk globalist who wanted to stay in Syria.

In spite of running as Jim Webb, Trump put neocons like Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton in charge of our foreign policy. He has deferred to Marco Rubio on Venezuela, Tom Cotton on Iran and Lindsey Graham on Russia. Even though Iraqis demanded that Trump withdraw American troops from their country, he refuses to pull them out. He has increased the number of American troops in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and escalated tensions in the region to a boiling point. It got so bad that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sent his brother to the United States to urge Trump to calm down tensions with Iran.

What does it say about Trump’s foreign policy that Saudi Arabia is advising him to deescalate with Iran? Why is Steve Bannon on FOX News comparing Trump to Winston Churchill and the Democrats to Neville Chamberlain? Do you remember voting for Trump in 2016 for a new global crusade on behalf of freedom, democracy, homosexuality and feminism?

Note: Now that I think about it, Trump sounded like Jeff Sessions on immigration and trade in 2016. How did that turn out?

Go to Source