Brutal Form

The Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media worked overtime this weekend, figuratively clutching their collective pearls and telling us that war with Iran is imminent. The reason—the killing of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds force. What the Dems and their hamsters don't seem to realize is that 'war" with Iran has been ongoing since 1979—through proxies to be sure, but "war" nonetheless. As usual, Trump has been more honest than previous Presidents, bringing this internecine conflict out into the open. Most of the Washington elites would prefer it remain hidden, kicking the can down the road for others to deal with.

Even the Dems grudgingly admit that Soleimani was a bad guy, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troop and the maiming of thousands more. But it appears that in the Dem's view the Iranians can provoke, threaten, kill, conduct pin-prick attacks, take hostages, attack our allies in the region, and otherwise create havoc throughout the Middle East and yet, suffer no kinetic consequences. Sanctions are biting in Iran and the Mullahs are desperate to have them lifted. The problem is that they refuse to negotiate. In an odd way, their hatred of the United States and "the Zionists" is analogous to the Dems hatred of Trump and his supporters. Both the Iranians and the Dems seem mildly deranged as they allow their antipathy to guide their decision-making.

Ex-Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is an old-school moderate Democrat (hated now by the new Democrat base). He writes this in The Wall Street Journal:

President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.

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.

... 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.

Iran is a malign force in the Middle East, and yes, they can and do create havoc. All the more reason to make them understand that there are consequences for their actions, and that sometimes those consequences can take a rather brutal form.

UPDATE:
----------------
Talk about brutal form, conservative firebrand, Kurt Schlichter, goes off on the response of most Democrats and their progressive supporters to the events leading up to the killing of Soleimani:

Zapping Qassam Soleimani ruined an Iranian offensive that had started with such promise. When the dirtbag catspaws of the dirtbag Iranian mullahs surrounded the American embassy in Baghdad, American liberals were more excited than the old Weekly Standard’s staff would have been upon discovering that it was sharing one of its cruises with a pool boy and sexy gardener convention. Libs and their Fredocon submissives were practically salivating at the thought of fellow Americans being murdered by scuzzy foreigners and the opportunity such a tragedy would present for blaming Donald Trump. This was Trump’s Benghazi test, they chortled on social media.

Yeah, except Trump passed his test.

The Iranians had been getting uppity for a while, but then their punks killed an American contractor in a rocket attack on a U.S. base – and let’s not get distracted about whether we should still be there. They killed an American. We are there, and you don’t get a pass on murdering U.S. citizens because we may or may not have a good reason for them still being there. You get dead ...

This could escalate, sure. Maybe a show of force will be met by force in response. But if we roll over like gimps, our weakness will absolutely draw force in response. And we are never going to get every single American out of the Middle East. We’ll always have embassies, business contacts, U.S. citizens with family and Americans who just damn well feel like going there who can be targeted ...

We don’t want an escalation and we should show restraint where we can – but killing Americans must be a red line, a real one, not an Obama one. If this does escalate into a major confrontation, we need to keep some principles in mind. We need to do more than “send messages." Pain should be our message. Any strike should have a tactical (if not strategic effect). Hitting the arms caches means they have fewer arms, and they got the message. And we focus on destroying what the decision-makers in Tehran care about: sink some capital ships, vaporize a bunch of aircraft, flatten a refinery. It’s even better when it can support the Persian patriots in Iran who want to hang their oppressors from the lamp posts.

“Proportionality” is a sucker’s game. Our goal should be pain. Screw with America and we hurt you, mullahs. Personally. Not just the idiots who do your dirty work. You and your toys.

As if on cue this afternoon, the Dems' Nancy Pelosi complained that Trump's actions lacked "proportionality." Incredible! Maybe it's time to make Iran pay for a war that they started in 1979 and continue all these years later. Maybe it's time that the Mullahs realize that their heinous actions have bloody consequences—for them.