Former Senator Joe Lieberman wrote an editorial today that I largely agree with. I would like to share at least part of it and then contribute my own comments.
“The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.”
“After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president.”
Senators Lyndon Johnson and Richard Russell were the most ardent supporters of Dwight Eisenhower’s Foreign Policy, saving the Marshall Plan, NATO, and American Participation in the United Nations from Republican Isolationists.
“No American can dispute that Soleimani created, supported and directed a network of terrorist organizations that spread havoc in the Middle East. In Syria he made it possible for the Assad regime to respond with brutality to its own people’s demands for freedom. More than 500,000 Syrians have died since 2011 and millions more have been displaced from their homes. According to the U.S. government, these fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers since 2003. In another time, this would have been a just cause for an American war against Iran, and certainly for trying to eliminate Soleimani.
Yet if we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively. Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un ) much to fear.
The claim by some Democrats that Mr. Trump had no authority to order this attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and practically senseless. Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution. It defies common sense to argue that the president must notify Congress or begin a formal process of authorization before acting on an imminent threat.
On many occasions President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. He did so without specific congressional authorization, and without significant Democratic opposition. Mr. Obama also “brought justice” to Osama bin Laden without prior, explicit congressional approval.
It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is. If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November.
Let me share my own points: First of all, Soleimani was killed in Bagdad, not Iran. Is there any difference between this and killing of bin Laden in Pakistan? Does anyone think he was in Iraq for humanitarian reasons? Secondly, does not the American President have an obligation to kill somebody who is responsible for the death of 600 Americans and thousands of innocent civilians in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq? Thirdly, since 1979 Iran has been a terrorist regime. It has expanded its base throughout the Middle East and now is a threat to our allies–Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Fourthly, Iran is now using the killing of Soleimani as an excuse to renew their nuclear program. Does anyone think that the other participants in the 2015 treat with Iran feel that these other countries will take effective action against Iran to stop their intention of becoming a nuclear power? Fifth, while I do not want an expansion of Iran-U.S. military tensions, I would prefer it now then when Iran has nuclear capability. Six, the United States can apply such military and economic power against Iran that the regime can be crippled in months.
In conclusion, for years we have condemned Joseph Chamberlain for his sellout of the Czechs at Munich in the face of Hitler’s threats. I think much of the rhetoric on the side of leaders of the Democratic Party is similar in myopia to Chamberlain.
Originally published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
