At the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary debate on Friday, Democrats failed when questioned on whether they would have authorized the U.S. military strike that killed Qassem Soleimani.
Soleimani, commander of the covert action arm of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed in a January U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. President Trump authorized that strike in response to Soleimani’s efforts to organize attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East, and in the context of the Iranian general’s historic role in killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War.
But as I say, Democrats were unconvincing.
Pete Buttigieg was first to respond, and he offered platitudes. He said he would not have authorized a strike against Soleimani unless he could “evaluate the entire intelligence picture” and know what all the “different effects would be.” This might sound good, but it fails to realize a simple truth: There is no such thing as perfect intelligence. Inadequate information must be assessed in short order to come to the best possible decision. Nor does the commander in chief benefit, as Buttigieg seems to believe, from a time travel device that allows them to see what the “different effects” of an action will be before said action is even ordered.
Tom Steyer’s predictably useless commentary could be summed up with his line, “We don’t have allies.” A line, I will say, that is likely to be news to true allies such as Australia, Japan, and our 28 NATO partners.
Joe Biden is angry with Trump for killing Soleimani because Iran then wounded U.S. soldiers when it fired missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq. Biden’s absent anger toward Iran for Iran’s own action says everything you need to know about why the Obama administration was so useless in dealing with the revolutionary Islamic theocracy.
Elizabeth Warren talked about Afghanistan. In case you hadn’t heard, Afghanistan is not the same thing as Iran.
However, Bernie Sanders gets the prize for the stupidest answer. After attacking Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as worse than Soleimani, an insane suggestion, Sanders wailed about how the Soleimani strike has opened “the door to international anarchy” by risking other nations assassinating whomever they want, whenever they want.
But as I say, the stupidity here is great.
Take just two examples: Russia’s 2018 nerve agent assassination attempt on British soil, and Iran’s unprovoked 2011 effort to blow up the Saudi ambassador as he dined in a Washington restaurant. Did Vladimir Putin and Qassem Soleimani authorize those actions because the United States had killed someone just before? No, they did so because they believed they could get away with it.
That speaks to the key point: Effective counterterrorism and the broader stability of international order do not rest on the back of nice rules and polite discussions at the United Nations. They rest on the balancing beam of deterrence and destruction — on nations knowing that they will be held to account for what they do to America, our allies, or to innocent peoples. Absent our ability to position a credible threat at the heart of their calculation, our enemies will try to get away with as much mayhem as possible.
Dear Democratic 2020 candidates, please stop pretending you have all the answers and that Trump is simply stupid.
