45 had no trouble choosing to assassinate a foreign leader. All it seemed he needed was the option of doing so, as news reports indicated. Some of his associates were shocked that he would pluck that out of the bag without consulting about possible consequences, but this is the way he is: He, in fact, is Alfred E. Neuman, whose favorite phrase was "What, me worry?"
Once the decision was made, it was just a matter of when. Apparently, Secretary of State Pompeo had recommended such an act weeks beforehand, so it's not as if the concept was freshly hatched. The justification has been vaguely stated in terms of the "imminent" danger of an attack that Soleimani had been planning--the specifics of which have still not been revealed. The word "imminent" is supposed to mean "about to take place," but these people have been playing with definitions for a while now.
But the moral issue has long been vetted. Remember, Obama had a chance to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to trial, even though Clinton had already tried to kill him. Though Kennedy had wanted Ngo Dinh Diem to be safely transported out of South Vietnam and put into exile, he could not stop Diem's murder. And the CIA arranged for Chilean President Salvador Allende to be overthrown and murdered by a coup supporting General Augosto Pinochet in 1973.
Nevertheless, in "The West Wing," this particular fictitious president is struggling with the final decision of assassination. He's in New York City, ostensibly watching a Broadway musical. The hours turn to minutes. He steps out of the theater and into a foyer. His chief of staff, who must actually communicate the order if there is to be one, follows him because he has to know now:
President: Civilians get trials.
Leo: I know. He's not a civilian. So said the Attorney General.
President: They're gonna find out it's us. We're gonna make it look like the plane went down, but they're gonna find out it's us. I'm gonna be running for re-election while I'm fighting a war against Qumar.
Leo: (with some incredulousness) That's why you want to say no?
President: I want him tried.
Leo: That can't happen.
President: I understand.
Leo: Would it be helpful if I provided you a list of all the names--
President: What do you want from me?
Leo: Who is the monk that wrote: 'I'll always know the right thing to do. I think that the fact that I want to please you pleases you.' You have two minutes, sir.
President: This isn't a matter of religion.
Leo: Isn't it?
President: I recognize that here's evil in the world.
Leo: Exactly, sir.
President: Doesn't this mean we join the league of ordinary nations?
Leo: (again, rather incredulous) That's your objection? I won't have any objections to saying the pledge of allegiance tomorrow.
President: That's not my objection.
Leo: Sir?
President: It's just wrong. It's absolutely wrong.
Leo: I know. But you have to do it anyway.
President: Why?
Leo: Because you won.
President: (pausing for one last moment) Take him.
And he is taken. The president's right: The cover-up fails. The press does its job. All hell breaks loose.
So when 45 simply decided to kill Soleimani and didn't bother to hide it, were we better off? Is the bare bones admission that we've assassinated a bad foreign actor and managed to connect it with the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq starting more than a decade ago (and might have included a student from the high school where I taught, the son of a teaching colleague. He was killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) as were several hundred by such weapons. Soleimani is given credit for improving IEDs to be larger and more effective, as in the film "The Hurt Locker.") sufficient for us to walk away knowing that the war in Iraq was also fought against us by an Iranian who more than likely fought against Iraq in the mid-'80s, under the banner that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Is it "imminent" enough that we caught him in a vulnerable spot and got him? And is the obvious ruse of an inaccurate Iranian missile retaliatory attack enough to provide enough of a conclusion that for now, this matter is at an end? Does that sufficiently steal the thunder from the press, who can only now speculate upon the imminence, since for "security reasons" nobody else is going to know the "real" reason it was done? As if there actually is one beneath the surface appearance that, in the middle of an impeachment hearing, something of a similar magnitude had to take place in order for a severe distraction to work?
Beyond that, which is bad enough: What bothers me, and will continue to do so, is that 45 fairly leapt at the option provided for him by advisors to commit to the assassination, and would probably not have done so had he not known that it was on the table, although considered such a severe solution that he would obviously not take it (Considering 45's track record of temper loss, I'm not sure how anyone could have concluded that.).
Compare that to the admittedly fictitious president above, who fought ethical and moral restrictions until he simply couldn't any longer. Defenders might say: Never mind, snowflake. He reached the same conclusion anyhow. The guy was dirt. He had to be removed.
Such defenders might chortle that any enemy of ours has to beware that our reach is too long to hide anywhere, and that makes us safe. No, it doesn't, and we've known that for some time now. There's no way to know that such a person as 45, someone of that same knee-jerk reaction to everything he touches, had any thought that the same exact lesson might be delivered to us someday, not by Iran itself but by proxies it has all over the globe.
To the simplistic minded (like him) who would ask, What can they do to us? would be the simplistic answer: One hell of a lot. They can do it a little at a time. They can do it anywhere they want. They don't need to invade anyone or attack any ship. In a phrase from a later "West Wing" show: They can lie in the tall grass and wait. They can wait for years. They can wait until after 45 leaves office so the attack is tied to someone not at all responsible for creating the conditions behind it, which would be exactly what 45 would want and quickly try to explain away.
Here's a phrase that hasn't been used in a while: Dirty bomb. And the nuclear agreement with Iran has now been trashed.
Either way, the complete lack of perspective that reportedly informed 45's decision to go ahead with the assassination should be chilling. We have, in the most powerful position in the history of the world, someone who doesn't feel he needs to discuss or even consider whether or not such a score can even be settled. He's dead, right? True, but he's already been replaced. Iran launched missiles and missed? Uh-huh. Think they're just bad shots? (And it's now been confirmed that somebody pressed the wrong button and apparently shot down a Ukrainian jetliner the same night of the missile attack. All the more reason for concern. Those who create chaos cause chaotic reactions.) Or is that government, too, trying to placate its citizens to play a longer game?
Do you want a president who actually cares about all this, who considers this the loneliest decision, who is still filled with angst because while this is admittedly a bad person he's dealing with, he's still a person, a fellow member of the human race? Or someone who doesn't, who is too cold-blooded to hesitate, too anxiously gleeful to announce a "win" over an adversary? We have another chance to elect someone else this November. That's one of the questions that should be kept in mind.
Because once upon a time, we thought we had a country that was an outstanding exception: That acted on principles first; that believed that because it had moved the world by declaring and then winning its independence against a dominant kingdom; and that because it created a government that worked because no one could gain too much power at any one time, it became the model for many subsequent governments.
Once upon a time, we thought so. Once upon a time, we had reason to believe we would never belong to the league of ordinary nations. Once upon a time.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment