As a real estate magnate and politician, Donald Trump has always loved breaking rules and putting on a show. Now in Iran he's following the same pattern -- only this time as commander in chief of the world's biggest military.
Whether negotiating skyscraper deals or conducting a trade war with China, Trump can resemble a flamboyant and highly unpredictable poker player.
As he said in his autobiographical book "The Art of the Deal," the role thrills him.
"Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game," he wrote.
The difference now is that he's playing with drones, warplanes, cruise missiles and other lethal cards in a game that risks plunging the United States into yet another Middle Eastern war.
With last Friday's stunning drone strike against key Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, outside the airport in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, Trump yet again upended the status quo -- and alarmed his critics.
The attack was "wildly counterproductive," said John Mueller, a foreign policy expert at Ohio State University.
Soleimani has been a top US enemy during two decades of conflict in the region.
But Trump's predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, are said to have held off from killing the wily commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps for fear of the consequences.
As pointman for Tehran's wide-ranging regional network of official and covert military alliances, Soleimani was far more than just a general -- he was one of the most important figures in Iran.
His killing, Mueller said, "will unify people on the side of the mullahs" just when their theocratic, deeply anti-US regime is increasingly unpopular.
Trump, as usual, pronounced himself free of such concerns.
"He should have been taken out many years ago!" the president tweeted soon after the killing.
"General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more... but got caught!"
- Reckless or refreshing? -
Trump justified his trade war with China in much the same way. For decades, other presidents were too weak to dare to take on Beijing's unfair trade practices, he claimed.
With nuclear-armed North Korea, another long-running US foreign policy headache, Trump again threw out precedent.
After first threatening "fire and fury" against the isolated dictatorship, he went on to declare leader Kim Jong Un a good friend, betting that his own charisma and personal touch would succeed where harsher policies had failed.
The results in both cases are mixed.
A thaw has been declared in the trade war, but China remains far from reforming its economy, while the outwardly more friendly North Korea has steadily consolidated its nuclear power status.
Now the Iran drama sees that Trump doctrine being applied for the first time to a crisis with the real risk of imminent war.
And Trump's detractors are nervous that he has blundered, or will blunder, into disaster.
"The moment we all feared is likely upon us," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted at the weekend.
"An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining. Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians. A nightmare."
The top Democrat in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, has announced plans to vote on a war powers resolution aimed at putting a check on Trump's military actions to avert a "serious escalation" with Iran.
The president's backers, however, say his blunt style and risk-taking policies are exactly what the United States needs.
"This was long overdue," said Thomas Spoehr, a retired army lieutenant general who heads defense studies at the Heritage Foundation think tank.
Following recent attacks against US troops in Iraq and the embassy in Baghdad, Trump had to strike back hard or end up ruining US credibility, Spoehr argued.
"America's reputation, its respect in places like the Middle East, depends on our ability to stand up," he said. "When people cross American red lines..., they know there's going to be a response."
Spoehr pointed to Trump's moving of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- a gesture seen by much of the world as highly provocative to the Palestinians -- as more proof the president has the right instincts.
Predictions that the switch would "set the region on fire" proved far-fetched, Spoehr said.
Trump "doesn't constrain himself with normal conventional wisdom."
America's long tug of war over presidential military power
Washington (AFP) Jan 6, 2020 - The US drone strike that killed top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani has revived debate about whether American presidents have unilateral authority to launch attacks and send soldiers into battle, or must await congressional approval.
War powers are divided in the US Constitution, and not in a definitive way, experts say, leading to a decades-long tug of war between the White House and Congress over who has final say on military action.
President Donald Trump ordered the attack that killed Soleimani in Baghdad, Iraq last week, and his administration has claimed it was an "absolutely legal operation."
Democratic lawmakers have questioned its legality and warned Trump does not have authority to march the United States into a war with Iran.
Here is a look at where US war powers reside.
- War Powers Resolution -
Article 1 of the Constitution limits a president's authority to use force without a congressional declaration of war. But since World War II commanders in chief have assumed broader authority to send US troops into hostilities -- often actions short of war -- without Congress consenting.
The controversial War Powers Resolution (WPR) was enacted in 1973 over the veto of Richard Nixon as a way for Congress to claw back its authority, following a massive, undeclared war in Vietnam.
It states that "the president in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States armed force into hostilities," and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF).
The WPR has proved a weak constraint on presidential power, with every White House since arguing it unconstitutionally shackles a commander in chief in the performance of their duty.
"It's time for Congress to take back that responsibility," Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted Monday.
- Dominant executive authority -
Presidents for decades have claimed authority to use military force to defend US personnel and respond to or prevent attacks.
Months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, George W. Bush received broad authority for the use of military force in Iraq, an AUMF that each subsequent president has cited in launching attacks in the Middle East, including in Syria.
Barack Obama was criticized in 2011 for not seeking congressional authorization to launch strikes in Libya against that country's forces and government. He claimed he was acting to prevent a humanitarian disaster.
Trump had the legal obligation under the War Powers Resolution to notify Congress within 48 hours of the Soleimani missile strike, and he did so Saturday in classified form.
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien said Trump was "fully authorized" by the 2002 AUMF, something many Democrats fiercely reject.
But the administration has also signalled it is aware of limitations.
Last year, when asked by lawmakers whether the AUMF gave Trump authority to attack Iran, then defense secretary nominee Mark Esper, now the Pentagon chief, cautioned: "Not to conduct a war."
- Next steps -
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her chamber will vote this week on a new war powers resolution to curb Trump's military actions.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he would oppose restricting Trump's "latitude" to conduct foreign policy.
"The last thing America needs is 535 Commanders in Chief," Graham said, referring to the number of US lawmakers.
Congress took a huge step toward such restrictions last April when it passed a measure ending US involvement in the Yemen war. But Trump vetoed the legislation.
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote in Lawfare blog Friday that "presidential aggrandizement" and congressional acquiescence has led to a president's enormous discretion to use the military "in ways that can easily lead to a massive war."
"That is our system," he added. "One person decides."
Related Links
Space War News
| Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution. |
||
| SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal |
 |
SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only |
Death toll from strike on Libya military school updated to 30
Tripoli (AFP) Jan 5, 2020
At least 30 people were killed in an air strike on a military school in Libya's capital, a spokesman for the health ministry said Sunday citing a new toll. Thirty three others were wounded in Saturday's air raid on the military school of Tripoli, Amin al-Hashemi, spokesman for the health ministry of the UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) said. The military school is in al-Hadba al-Khadra, a residential area in south Tripoli. Surveillance camera footage shared online showed the ... read more
from Military Space News, Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defense https://ift.tt/37Slcj1
via space News
No comments: