
Iran general Qassem Suleimani killed in Baghdad drone strike - dmagee
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/baghdad-airport-iraq-attack-deaths-iran-us-tensions
======
chrissnell
Some context here:

This guy was directly responsible for hundreds (maybe over 1,000) U.S.
Soldiers killed in Iraq by shaped charge IEDs manufactured by Iran and its
Iraqi proxies. He also orchestrated clandestine raids and kidnappings, like
the one that happened in Karbala in 2007. [0]

He was also responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of civilians in Iraq
and Syria at the hands of Shia death squads and Shia militias/paramilitary
forces. These are people who kidnapped innocent Sunni civilians off the
streets and drilled holes through their skulls to kill them. (Sorry for the
graphic description there, but this was ugly war)

He was in charge of the Quds Force, which is like the American CIA and Special
Forces Command combined. But, he’s far more important than his Major General
(2-star) rank implies. He’s probably the second-most powerful person in Iran.
Equivalent in strength to a Vice President, but much more behind the scenes.
This is huge. Imagine if David Petraeus secretly ran _everything_ that the US
did externally and then some nation killed him.

More context here:
[https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1212913366492016640](https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1212913366492016640)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala_provincial_headquarter...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala_provincial_headquarters_raid)

~~~
erentz
It’s hard to imagine what the response is going to be. I don’t think a lot of
people realize who this guy was or what this represents. (A lot of people are
probably confused about what an Iranian general is doing in Iraq in the first
place.)

I can only hope for the best outcome being something like Iraq asking us to
leave, and then largely falling into the fold of Iran. And hopefully that not
being opposed by the US (unlikely) and it being all the victory Iran needs.
Maybe something like that.

The alternative at a minimum is going to be many more lives lost and billions
spent. At the other end of the spectrum tens of thousands of US lives,
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Iranian lives, and trillions more in US
dollars thrown on the fire.

~~~
Zhenya
Why would the best outcome be the specific thing this action was made to
prevent - the overtaking of Iraq by Iran?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I don't think that's the specific outcome this action was intended to prevent.
I think it was intended to prevent this guy from orchestrating any more
killing of Americans. I think it was triggered by this guy's people killing an
American contractor last week.

------
shaabanban
I feel very conflicted about this. This man has an insane amount of blood on
his hands but I cannot help but feel anxious about what happens next. Iran's
paramilitary forces have entanglements in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen... this
seems to be the type of thing that could spiral into a regional conflict if
cooler heads do not prevail.

------
l0b0
Why are both the Guardian and NBC articles flagged? Is anyone actually
questioning the content of those articles? It looks like both Iranian and US
officials confirm them.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
There are quite a few HN readers who consider any political news off-topic.

------
liquidise
There is something philosophically unsettling about drone strikes. Violence,
particularly mortal violence is naturally self-policing in nature. In order to
kill something you must be there and risk injury yourself. Technology based
distance attacks like drones and missiles remove this doubley: you not only
de-risk your person, you are also more emotionally distanced from the attack
as well.

It is not a trend that bodes well for humanity in the future.

~~~
senectus1
its interesting in that, you can happily hurl big rocks at people in castles
via catapults while being unable to see what /who you're hitting and be
perfectly safe, yet you might not (I know i dont) have an issue with it like
you (and I) do with drones...

its basically the same thing. just an upscale in range, and really safe
distance is safe distance... doesn't really change the situation when you add
more 00's to the distance.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Iran is not sieging our castle, that is the key difference. We are the
aggressor, even if the acts of the other side are morally repulsive

~~~
TechBro8615
They were sieging our embassy...

~~~
gremlinsinc
In basically their territory. Why do we need a presence or embassy there? Why
waste the money? Does Canada have an embassy in every nation? Does France?
What about Sweden and Denmark?

If we absolutely need a presence why not have coalition embassies? A single
office w/ 1 member from each coalition country, and equal soldiers from all
countries and diplomatically making unilateral decisions as a group not based
on any country's agenda.

