Some Thoughts on the Drone Attack on Soleimani
Is the uproar regarding the drone strike that took Major General Qasem Soleimani’s life another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) or is it a fundamental change in how we deal with terrorist groups and military encounters?
Between 1997 and 2019, the United States has designated 63 entities as Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The Iranian Quds force, led by Soleimani, was designated a terrorist organization by President Bush in 2007. The larger Iranian group, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Quds force is a part of, was designated a Terrorist Organization by President Trump in 2019.
Over the past 15-20 years, Pakistan has been a haven for terrorist groups to hide until ready to make an attack. From 2004-2017, the United States performed 409 drone attacks in Pakistan against terrorist organizations (Bush – 51, Obama – 373, and Trump – 5). None of these were sanctioned with specific approval of Congress. These attacks killed 2,533 militants and 288 civilians.
Four countries have been labeled as state-sponsors of terrorism. They are North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria. These nations can sponsor terrorism through their own organization, such as Iran’s IRGC and Iran’s Quds force. They can also sponsor terrorism through proxy groups by aiding non-state rogue terrorist groups. The Quds force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
My question – should state-sponsored terrorism be treated any differently than non-state terrorism? Many members of Congress seem to think it should be. They feel that a drone attack on a state-sponsored Quds terrorist leader should be pre-approved by Congress. We have our intelligence organization tracking terrorist movements and communications. Do we need a checklist from Congress with how to handle each terrorist organization and terrorist? Things like:
- Where they can be hit (anywhere, only on certain soil, etc.).
- When they can be hit (anytime, when planning an attack, or during an attack).
- Which terrorist group requires Congress approval to hit.
- Which specific terrorist in the group requires Congress approval to hit.
Many programs become inefficient and non-productive once government folks start coming up with all the specifics of how they want the program to operate. I was in charge of a welfare reform project for Colorado Governor Romer. I meticulously documented the requirements during many meetings with Dept of Human Services users. The requirements changed often as they thought through the processes and the number of requirements grew rapidly. We were finally able to hone them into something that met the mission and was cost-effective. Let’s see what Congress comes up with for handling terrorist encounters.
In my opinion, if a group is on our terrorist list it means we are at war with them and we should take appropriate action to stop them. The terrorists know they are on a list and they should be prepared to defend themselves against us at any time and place. If Congress had been making the decision on what to do about Soleimani, he wouldn’t have still been at the Baghdad airport when they decided. If they had decided not to attack him, then when would they ever decide to attack him? Would he be free to spread his terror unchallenged?
A lot of questions. Ones I think you should ponder as your Congress decides the proper approach. I hope they aren’t making decisions based upon Trump Derangement Syndrome, but rather on what is best to protect our military and civilian personnel overseas as well as us at home.
You may want to read H.R.1193 – Reclamation of War Powers
Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1193/text
It won’t likely become law under the current Administration.