Credibility Matters, Including in Foreign Policy
Let’s review.
1. Donald Trump recently said:
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020
The language used was “any U.S. person or target.” Shortly thereafter, Iran hit two U.S. bases with missiles. Presumably those were targets. Trump did nothing in response, despite having promised to do so.
Personally, I’m glad Trump did not respond as he threatened.
But I’m not glad he made a threat that turned out to have no credibility.
2. Mike Pompeo has been going around telling everyone that Iran was threatening an “imminent” attack. Yesterday we learned what he meant by that:
Pompeo tonight on Fox on the “imminent” nature of the threat posed by Soleimani: “There is no doubt there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted. We don’t know when and where. But it was real.”
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 10, 2020
The definition of “imminent” is “ready to take place” or “happening soon.” It is a word that implies a time element. But Pompeo admits he doesn’t know the time element, even as he asserts that the time element was soon.
Personally, I think the killing of Soleimani was probably legal. I doubt it had to be “imminent” as long as there was a valid pre-emptive rationale — especially given that we had a right to be in Iraq (whether you agree with our mission or not, we had a right to be there), and Soleimani had planned and carried out attacks against us there before.
But I’m not glad that Pompeo is making claims about “imminence” that he reveals in the next breath he can’t back up.
Look: the idea that the Trump administration lacks credibility is hardly a new concept. Everyone knows it. But the fact that it doesn’t surprise you that they have no credibility doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter that they have no credibility.
And no matter what you think of the attack on Soleimani, the way the administration has handled the explanations shows that they had no coherent strategy and that their attitude is that you had better not debate what Trump does or else. I’ll leave you with Mike Lee channeling my response to that:
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
My understanding is that someone with the Joint Chiefs told Lee and the others that stripping Trump of the war powers act over this was really stupid. Nobody but Rand Paul cared when Obama was droning everyone. Trump offs a genuine bad guy, exercises restraint after the fizzle of a retaliation (in spite of his words) and they want to strip him. Doesn’t make sense. Lee needs to unknot his panties, get down off his high horse and wait for a real use of force problem to solve. This is not that instance.
steveg (354706) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:19 amThere is no doubt in my mind that if Trump had gone to Congress to tell them of his plans to strike Soleimani, that someone (or multiples of someones) in Congress or via Congress to the media, Iran would have been tipped off.
The behavior of the Democrats and media after the fact shows me whose side that were taking.
Trump did not behave irresponsibly in this instance. He got ahead of himself on “cultural sites” then the Sec Def told him they would follow the law, Trump backed down and said he’d been told it was against the law so he wouldn’t do it.
steveg (354706) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:30 amEarlier he was measured in action when the drone was shot down. The violence in his words was offset by a bunch of cruise missile blowig up empty real estate. He was mocked, but I thought he talked too big but acted prudently.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-new-national-security-team-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195
Davethulhu (fab944) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:35 amOh, well, that’s different then!
How dare a mere senator, elected by the common riff-raff, question the judgment of someone with the Joint Chiefs when it comes to who we should and shouldn’t drop bombs on?!
Dave (1bb933) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:41 am”But I’m not glad he made a threat that turned out to have no credibility.“
The mullahs just need to retain the right lawyers to assure them Trump was the one that blinked. I mean, it says so in the fine print.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:52 amThis administration has zero credibility on foreign policy. Zip, zilch, nada. The only “statements” foreign nations will take seriously are fait accomplis like the killing of Soleimani. For Trump, the whole world is Missouri: “Show me!”
nk (dbc370) — 1/10/2020 @ 9:20 amIt’s amazing that the President accomplishes a significant foreign policy and global war on terror objective, yet manages to bollix it up by a complete inability on his part and his administration’s part to explain it with any credibility. The idea that they needed to claim that Soleimani had “imminent” plans for an attack is ridiculous; it didn’t cause any lefty Congressperson or editorial board to come over to his way of thinking and Soleimani’s past actions were more than enough to justify his targeted killing. And why on earth would the President tell anyone that he took this action because he wanted to shore up GOP support in his impeachment trial (with the important caveat that perhaps the media made that up)? Even if that’s true, it’s the sort of thing a sane man would keep in pectore.
As usual, the administration steps on its own d___ while walking up the victory platform. Ugh. It’s going to be a long year to November.
JVW (54fd0b) — 1/10/2020 @ 9:30 amCredibility Matters
Credibility should matter more. There’s no evidence that it’s mattered much any time in recent memory. I also don’t see anyone rushing to embrace it. Rushing to use it against their political opponents and score points, sure. Actually, trying to lay the groundwork to establish it with things like consistency and objectivity, not so much.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/10/2020 @ 9:47 amThe definition of “imminent” is “ready to take place” or “happening soon.” It is a word that implies a time element. But Pompeo admits he doesn’t know the time element, even as he asserts that the time element was soon.
This is oversimplified. The issue in international law is what does it mean that there is an “imminent” threat. Does that have to mean that an attack is about to happen, or that a threat is being planned and organized now, even if it will be executed later?
This article discusses the point:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961
Here is one interesting quote:
IOW, the current administration would have been better off saying, this guy is continuously planning attacks against Americans. Whether the next attack would take place today, tomorrow or next week, he is a constant threat. And consistent with the positions taken by the last two administrations, that justifies killing him.
So, as usual, a perfectly legitimate and justifiable position is f—d up by Trump’s overstatements and then attempts by underlings to walk back those statements.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 1/10/2020 @ 10:52 am1. This administration will occasionally do the right thing, but only in the dumbest way possible.
Time123 (b87ded) — 1/10/2020 @ 10:53 am2. Character is destiny. The man seems like he can’t tell the truth. If he has a good reason he needs to lie and make it a great reason. Maybe he’s so used to lying it’s 2nd nature. Maybe he feels powerful watching people jump to defend him when they know he’s lying. Maybe he doesn’t think anyone will believe him and feels he has to lie so that when they parse his statements they end up on the truth. Maybe he’s suffering from dementia and he just doesn’t know what’s going on. Only thing I can say for sure is that his statements are the least reliable of any major politician in my lifetime.
this guy is continuously planning attacks
This opens the door a bit too far if you want to deescalate with Iran. Any given Quds Force commander fits this definition for the foreseeable future. Not killing them then becomes a credibility issue.
It’s more flexible to simply not interpret imminent as a time certain and I don’t think it’s required. I think that the argument Pompeo was trying to make in a recent question and answer. If Soloman had a plan in place that was of the go-code, and not the synchronized watches, variety it wouldn’t have a time certain at all and it would still be imminent.
There’s also some advantage to the Iranians not knowing exactly where the line is.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/10/2020 @ 11:17 amIf there are people mad at Matt Gaetz for his resolution vote, keep in mind his most recent in-district truck would be with the Saudis (Pensacola) and not the Iranians, thus why let the POTUS have a free hand in being manipulated by Saudi Arabia to commit acts against Iran.
urbanleftbehind (139beb) — 1/10/2020 @ 11:26 amurbanleftbehind (139beb) — 1/10/2020 @ 11:26 am
My read on Gaetz is that he’s embracing the Ron/Rand Paul position and doesn’t want to get into the weeds on the differences between Shia and Sunni or Wahhabism and its role in the region.
I don’t know why he would use an essentially meaningless resolution as a hill where he can fall on his sword though.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/10/2020 @ 11:47 amMike Pompeo has been going around telling everyone that Iran was threatening an “imminent” attack. Yesterday we learned what he meant by that…
Today, in his presser, yet another Pompeo ‘what he meant.’ Either Pompeo is lying or the members of Congress he briefed are. But after three years of systematically dissing the U.S. intel community, it’s a hard sell for the SoS to suddenly use it as justification.
Helsinki.
With 12-13-14,000 lies and counting, the Trump Adminstration has earned zero credibility– and it has finally come home to roost.
Back in October, 1962, JFK, who had a much, much, much higher level of credibility with the American people than Trump, faced suspicions that he was exaggerating the severity of the missile crisis as an election as looming. To solidify both domestic and international support, the Kennedy Administration made a calculated decision to make some elements of the evidence public- then deemed ‘classified’- during Stevenson’s televised presentation at the UN. It appears ‘tame’ by today’s standards, but it was enough to be convince the world, firm up support and dispelled doubt.
Since those days, Americans have been subjected to the lies spawned in the Gulf of Tonkin as revealed by the Pentagon Papers which led to 58,000 dead in Vietnam; the bogus Iraqi WMD pitch and recent revelations over the lies about the Afghanistan war.
Never forget: these people work for us and act in our name. Nobody cares if you keep your salary or not, Donald; your choice. Show us- “We The People”- your evidence, Trump. Educated us; rally us to your cause! Even school children are required to show their work.
President Trump told Fox News lackey Laura Ingraham today when asked if the American people are entitled to see his evidence, “No, I don’t think so.”
Should ‘We The People’ believe you, Donald?
No, I don’t think so.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/10/2020 @ 11:57 amTo paraphrase, “You go to war with the president you have.”
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:05 pmIt’s not that Trump lies more than other presidents — hard to actually know — but that he’s so unimaginably bad at it. I mean Obama lied. W lied. Sh1t, Eisenhower and Kennedy lied. But they didn’t usually lie bout things that were in plain sight like Trump does.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:08 pm@16. ‘It’s not that Trump lies more than other presidents — hard to actually know…’
No. It’s not, Kevin; step away from the bong.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:10 pm@15. You ‘go to war’ when Congress declares it. Step away from that bong.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:12 pmhttps://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-real-backstory-of-why-trump-ordered-the-killing-of-suleimani-is-becoming-more-clear
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:55 pmThe simulation we’re all living in is totally jumping the shark with this Trump thing.
Dustin (d9d65a) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:55 pmIt’s one thing for so many people who used to speak about integrity and character to have decided they’re not bothered by Trump’s routine dishonesty or his glaringly self-serving view of right and wrong.
Radegunda (39c35f) — 1/10/2020 @ 1:55 pmWhat’s weirder is that so many ostensibly smart people don’t care, or don’t notice, that the president is off his rocker. And that so many people think it’s those who notice and care who are deranged.
He not off his rocker… he’s eccentric. Often a distinction without a difference.
steveg (354706) — 1/10/2020 @ 7:49 pmIf I was crazy like him I wouldn’t give a s#it about what you think either
What you think about me is none of my business
steveg (354706) — 1/10/2020 @ 7:50 pmLooks like I touched a nerve.
Radegunda (39c35f) — 1/10/2020 @ 8:55 pmThe eccentric slurring of speech and garbling of words and incoherent word salads are really a hoot.
Radegunda (39c35f) — 1/10/2020 @ 9:03 pm16. Kevin M (19357e) — 1/10/2020 @ 12:08 pm
Isn’t that good? You;d rather have a liar who got believed?
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/11/2020 @ 7:27 pm