This is the core question: Is America and Americans abroad safer that now that Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani has been killed by a U.S. military drone strike?
Before we get to that answer, it's important to consider what individuals on today's program said. First, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and presidential candidate suggested that the president engaged in a 'wag the dog' scenario - escalating military action to distract from impeachment - which is incredibly cynical. It's not an unthinkable notion for Donald Trump to go in the direction but for the moment, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt... For the moment. That aside, Betsy Woodruff-Swan explained that Ms. Warren's statements in the past week are trying to placate both edges of the Democratic party. She called Soleimani a terrorist and then said his killing was an assassination, which carries legal ramifications in the United States. It's this type of modulating that ultimately makes Ms. Warren a potentially disastrous president. Domestically, it was first Medicare-for-all and now it's a transition.
One the other end of the spectrum there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Chuck Todd the the United States is 'absolutely' safer as a result of this escalation with Iran. That statement on its face is troubling because nothing is absolute especially when you're dealing with an adversary such as Iran that is vowing 'harsh revenge.' Secretary Pompeo explained that Soleimani is a terrorist and that the cost of doing nothing was greater than acting now, tamping down the suggestion that this attack was a political distraction. This along with the fact that Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security said that his former department just issued a warning that Iran can conduct cyber attacks against the United States and that Hezbollah is able to attack the American homeland. How are we 'absolutely' safer?
Even though Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was briefed after the military action, he said that he believed there was a real threat. That's not a statement to be taken lightly, but he also explained that he needed have more information to determine if it was imminent. What's problematic in all cases with this administration is more information is never forthcoming. Going back to Mr. Pompeo for a moment, he said something that certainly raised an eyebrow. He stated that Mr. Todd was focusing on the moment, but that President Trump was concerned about Iran in terms of the 'long haul.' If we look at the administration's track record so far, a long-term strategy on anything hasn't been in the offering.
As of this writing the Iraqi prime minister is recommending that U.S. troops leave the country, which will only give Shiite militias aligned with Iran more room to operate. NBC's Richard Engel reported at the top of the program that the push back and protests against too much Iranian control in Lebanon have ebbed and that in Iran itself protests against the government have now changed into denouncing the actions of the United States. Mr. Engel reported that the Iranian government was on the ropes but the actions of the Trump Administration has had the opposite effect as the country's citizens are now rallying behind the government. He also assessed that if an attack were to come, it would most likely be an asymmetrical one, coming from Iran's proxies in the region.
So to revisit the question of whether or not America is safer, it's difficult to conclude that it is when there is such a strong possibility of armed conflict. The harsh revenge that the Iranian regime promises it will only prompt the United States to reciprocate in a bigger fashion.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff-Swan, The Daily Beast; Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor of North Carolina
No comments:
Post a Comment