Was Qasem Suleimani's death justified?
Some believe Donald Trump made the correct decision. Others believe it was an unjustified act of war. I have weighed a few arguments to get the discussion started.
The U.S. Defense Department... asserted that Soleimani had been planning further attacks on American diplomats and military personnel
Former Deputy Defense Secretary for the Middle East Michael Mulroy and retired Navy SEAL Eric Oehlerich state that the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani was justified and long overdue because he was an enemy combatant who orchestrated a lethal campaign against U.S. military, diplomats and intelligence officers in Iraq.
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, however, backed the strike, describing the American action as self-defense.
There was no significant retaliation by Iran.
Soleimani had a significant role in Iran's fight against ISIL in Iraq.
Soleimani played an integral role in the organisation and planning of the crucial operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq from ISIL.
Soleimani's military experience helped him earn a reputation as a successful fighter against drug trafficking.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) praised the killing of Soleimani as a divine intervention, saying it helped jihadists.
- durango joeLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
The mistake you are making is a common one, you are looking for good guys where there are only warring bad guys.
Iran and the militias that they have backed were fighting ISIS or ISIL whichever you prefer because Iran is allied with Syria.
Soleimani was not a good guy by any means and has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.
The fact that he was behind the murder of a US contractor and behind the attack on the US embassy in Iraq made him a viable target.
The embassy of any country is considered sovereign soil making an attack on that embassy an act of war.
Limiting the response to the military leader responsible for the attack was a reasonable action.
- 1 month ago
yes he was a terrorist leader
- NatashaLv 41 month ago
First off all, the administrations caginess to reveal specific on the intelligence they have is suspect. If the intelligence was credible enough to act upon immediately, why can't we see it? I mean they've gone more out of the way to redefine the word "imminence" than they have given any sort of specification but for the sake of this argument let's say that we know it was credible enough to justify this decision.
Now, a decision that can be justified is not the same as a decision that should be made. if that wasn't the case the the US and USSR would have gone to war with each other a couple dozen times. They were both more than justified to but they didn't because they looked at the wider picture. Yes, he planned attacks on Americans in the past and would have done so in the future. No one is disputing that. No one is saying this man didn't have it coming. However the world is unfortunately bigger and more complicated.
Now let's think about that wider picture for a moment. The important thing is not alienate the Iraqis. If you want to operate in a country and secure it from other nations influence then you need popular support. And you need that country. America cannot afford to lose Iraq to Iran. Iraq is critical to America containment of Iran. and an unannounced airstrike in Iraq's capital right outside their busiest airport that houses a military bases killing a goverment official of a country Iraq is friendly with and was scheduled to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister and if that wasn't enough also killing an Iraqi goverment official famed for helping defend Iraq from ISIS? Iran couldn't have asked for a more alienating action. This airstrike, whilst killed a man who deserved it, has done immense damage to Americas already rocky standing in Iraq. For god sake, countries have gone to war with each other for far less than this. America has gone to war for less than this. If you want Iraq to be on your side then you have to give them reasons to want to be on your side. Iran lost a handful of men for a huge blow to Iraqi-US relations. Iran won this round. No doubt about it.
Yes, this airstrike saved lives but it also drove an important country that you need much closer to your enemy. Which do you think will have wider consequences?
- BiffLv 71 month ago
If he really was involved in planning imminent lethal attacks on four US embassies his killing could be legally justified as self-defense. But the evidence he was planning such attacks is looking less certain. It is starting to look like a WMDs or Gulf of Tonkin sort of justification.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- SatanLv 71 month ago
We keep on getting told that he was planning an attack, that some people have seen the 'evidence'. I think it was similiar evidence to WMDs, as in BS made up to justify what they wanted
- Anonymous1 month ago
Notice how outraged liberals are by Soleimani's death compared to the 1500 protesters he had murdered late last year?
- 1 month ago
YES absolutely justified.