100 marines and 2 Apache helicopters sent. Also 82nd Airborne Rangers enroute. Iran/ Hezbolla militants your move.
Hillary? Is that you? Benghazi wasn’t enough? Glad Trump showed leadership and actually supported the Americans inside the embassy.
So Iraq didn't send their troops to protect us? We are not welcome. Why are we there? Also how would you all feel if a foreign power bombed your country? Regime change wars must end.
Glad Trump showed leadership and ordered a military strike within Iraq that the Iraqis did not want. Trump’s handling of the whole affair endangered lives within the American embassy.
Early in the confrontation, Trump issued threats against the Iraqi government as well as Iran, but following a conversation with Abdul-Mahdi, Trump appeared to moderate his position. He thanked Abdul-Mahdi for “stepping up” to protect the embassy, and distinctly tamped down saber-rattling against Iran, saying “I like peace,” and noting that he did not see a conflict with Iran happening. However, the Iraqi security forces that arrived at the site during and after the embassy takeover did not appear to interfere with the action of the protesters as they burned smaller buildings, spray-painted slogans onto the walls of the embassy, scaled the building to plant both militia and Iranian flags, and spent several hours trying to hammer their way through concrete and bulletproof glass to reach the inner compound. Those Iraqi security forces were still standing by as the order came from the militia groups to begin their withdrawal. But the cause for the militia withdrawal appears to be more of a promise than a threat. Just days earlier, Abdul-Mahdi had managed to stave off a vote in parliament on ordering all U.S. forces out of Iraq. Now it appears he will allow that vote to happen. Soon. According to the Associated Press, Donald Trump’s Christmas visit to Iraq renewed calls from the Iraqi legislator to order U.S. troops to leave, even before the recent series of U.S. strikes against bases in Iraq. During a less- than-three-hour visit, Trump did not meet with Abdul-Mahdi or other Iraqi leaders during, which was seen as a grave insult. At the time, Trump said he had no intention of withdrawing the 5,200 U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq. Abdul-Mahdi, who was informed of the impending U.S. airstrikes only half an hour in advance, and who warned the U.S. that they would generate potential conflict, spoke on Monday evening just hours before the embassy invasion; according to Reuters, he described the airstrikes as “an unacceptable vicious assault that will have dangerous consequences.” And the defining moment of the withdrawal doesn’t seem to have been any movement of forces from the U.S. or Iraq. As The New York Times reports, the real lever that sent the protesters packing their tents was a promise from Abdul-Mahdi that he would allow the legislation ordering the U.S. to depart from Iraq to move forward. The Atlantic notes that this legislation enjoys broad popular support, and is likely to be a major cause among other protest groups, including those who have occupied Tahrir Square in Baghdad for months. The Iranian-backed militia demonstrated that it could organize thousands of supporters to penetrate the Green Zone, scale the walls of the U.S. embassy, stand their ground against circling helicopters and walls bristling with armed Marines, and hold their position until ordered to withdraw. The Iraqi government—itself composed of the same Shiite factions that Trump has condemned—responded to the incident not by using force to restrain or remove the protesters, but by agreeing to allow a vote ordering the removal of all U.S. forces from Iraq.
It is not an entirely unreasonable suspicion. There are shia groups in iraq that are very strongly pro-Iran and which work according to Iran's wishes directed by Iranians. Maybe there is intelligence -secret or otherwise - proving it. Maybe it is a suspicion - Trump doesn't seem great at differentiating between what he suspects and established proven fact. Maybe it is a convenient scapegoat. But it isn't totally far fetched.
What this seems to demonstrate again to me is what a terrible tool done strikes are (looking at you Tulsi Gabbard). They are super seductive for politicians because they have low domestic political risk and don't have a big footprint in public consciousness. But they are a roll of the dice based on imprecise intelligence and backfire way too often. "Peacemaker" Obsma ramped drone strikes way the hell up. "Isolationist" Trump ramped them way the hell up again. There bill will eventually come due for all the inadvertent killings - especially if we keep increasing their use.
Glad he didn't bow down like his predecessor would've. He's also shown considerable restraint given the Saudi refinery attack and the drone shoot down. The latter being no big deal. Not to mention the endless harassment to our navy and other tankers. I wonder if his restraint is being taken for weakness. It seems obvious to me that he wants to avoid war at all costs. I'm down with that and don't care if it's perceived as weakness. Keep squeezing them with more sanctions. The population will eventually get tired of eating sand.
