Rep. Slotkin, “Preemptive Surrender” is national suicide

The Democrats believe in “pre-emptive surrender,” which leads to the powerlessness of America. President Trump believes in pre-emptive military attacks to insure the survival of America.

Mark Langfan, | updated: 14:59

OpEds הלווית קאסם סולימאני
הלווית קאסם סולימאני
Mark Langfan

Michigan U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin (Democrat-MI 8th District) is a former CIA analyst and Shia militia expert who served three tours in Iraq, focusing on Iranian-backed militias.  She flipped a Republican seat of Congress acting as a “moderate,” even though she voted in virtual lock step with the Democrats’ extremist fringe. 

She may be well-meaning.  However, in response to President’s Trump’s elimination of arch-terrorist Qassem Soleimani, she has revealed herself, and her fellow Deep State analysts as fools.  Her summation of the Deep State’s thinking on Iran’s arch-terrorist Soleimani, explainng why he wasn't taken out sooner, was: “Soleimani was too important and big a terrorist to kill or check, because Iran would have retaliated.” If Rep. Slotkin has accurately portrayed her own and the Deep State’s thinking about Iran, other terrorists and enemy-state threats, the United States is in danger.  Instead of employing the proven successful approach of "unilateral pre-emptive defensive strikes" as their Iran policy, the Deep State invented the policy of what I call "unilateral pre-emptive surrender."

Here are  Democrat Rep. Slotkin’s own words in response to President Trump’s elimination of Soleimani, Iran’s terrorist master-mind that has thousands of Americans’ soldiers blood on his hands and many tens of thousands of injured soldiers on his hands:

“As a former Shia militia analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq and worked at the White House under both Presidents Bush and Obama, and later at the Pentagon, I participated in countless conversations on how to respond to Qassem Soleimani’s violent campaigns across the region,” Slotkin said.

“If you worked on the Middle East over the past 20 years, you dealt with the growing organization and sophistication of Soleimani’s covert and overt military activities, which have contributed to significant destabilization across the region. I watched friends and colleagues get hurt or killed by Iranian rockets, mortars and explosive devices that were provided to Iraqi proxies and used against U.S. forces under Soleimani’s guidance. We watched as his power increased and he brought strength and capability to groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and to smaller cells around the Middle East and the world, with devastating consequences. We watched what can only be described as a cool war, taking place quietly under the surface of the public eye.

"What always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict? The two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn’t justify the means. The Trump Administration has made a different calculation.”

Let’s ask some basic questions of those who believe in the  “too big to eliminate” policy.  Soleimani and Iran were murdering American soldiers in Iraq with IEDs and other munitions as early as 2004.  Was Soleimani “too big to eliminate or check” in 2004, 2005?  Can it be that he was "too big to eliminate" from the start? - because otherwise, they should have eliminated him in 2004 or 2005.  However, the Deep State let Soleimani and Iran kill more and more American soldiers and wax stronger and stronger.  In Slotkin's own words: “We watched as his [and Iran’s] power increased and he [and Iran] brought strength and capability to groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and to smaller cells around the Middle East and the world, with devastating consequences.”

Since Soleimani and Iran were too big to eliminate from the start, he and his organization were also “too big to disturb or check.” Therefore, the Deep State, under Slotkin’s summation of her way of thinking, essentially left the terrorist Soleimani/Iranian cancer grow unchecked throughout the entire Middle East, murdering American soldiers with nothing to stop them. Under their “too big to bother” theory, to have done anything else might have gotten Soleimani and Iran upset, and Soleimani or Iran would have retaliated.

The Obama Iranian nuclear-deal adds fuel to the Deep State’s untouchable “Soleimani is too big to annoy” thinking. Here is how it works: 

Iran was, and is, America’s leading officially designated “state sponsor of terror", but arch-terrorist Soleimani and the leading state-sponsor-of terror, Iran, are “too big to eliminate.”  So the United States is going to make them both stronger by first virtually totally withdrawing from Iraq, giving Iran the entire country, and secondly, by giving Soleimani and Iran 150 billion dollars with 2 billion in cash, and also giving them free rein to control Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria in addition to Iraq. 

If Soleimani and Iran were too big to eliminate or check before the gift of 150 billion, what did they think he would be after he was infused with 150 billion dollars?

Which brings us to the central question, “If Soleimani or Iran was ‘too big’ to eliminate or check in 2004 through 2019, because Iran would have retaliated, when would America ever have been able to eliminate, stop, or check Soleimani or Iran?”  Even if Iran nuked Israel, Iran must have other nukes that it could use to retaliate against any strike. 

If this is what guided policy, America could never have retaliated against Soleimani or Iran for anything.  The policy was to allow the Soleimani/Iranian monster terrorist to get stronger and stronger, because to do anything else would invite Soleimani to retaliate. But what about President Reagan’s 1988 ‘Operation Praying Mantis’ against Iran that left Iran circumspect for many years afterward? Who invented the national insecurity policy of pre-emptive surrender?

No wonder that, in Slotkin’s own words, “The Trump Administration has made a different calculation.”  Rep. Slotkin has clarified the difference between the Democrats and the Deep State on the one hand, and Presidents Trump and Reagan on the other: The Democrats and the Deep-State believe in “pre-emptive surrender,” which leads to the powerlessness of America; and Presidents Trump and Reagan believe, and believed, in pre-emptive military attacks to insure the survival of America.

Make no mistake, the systemic danger to America is not only the Deep State’s clear “preemptive surrender” to Iran. What if the Deep State thinks this way about China or Russia or North Korea?  Has America already effectively conceded surrender to all of these enemies?  What is going on in our government bureaucracy?  Have they lost their minds?

We can now understand why President Trump is the enemy of the Deep State.  It’s because the very people we have empowered to protect us from foreign enemies appear to have already surrendered the country to our enemies.  For example, take the Domestic Security Deep State Department of James Comey and the FBI cabal.  In the name of the United States, they violated every national security principle of the United States, and this in the worst interests of the United States.  President Trump will go down as the greatest president ever if he can wrest America from the insidious and suicidal grip of the Deep State.




top