Condemning the Strikes on Sharif University

Q: You don’t know exactly what they were doing at Sharif University. I’m pretty sure that the intel the Dept. of War received on that university and what they were doing there was a threat, not only to our national security, but also the security and stability of the entire region. You may know more than I do, with the work you are currently doing. But if they were researching and building weapons and/or extracting and storing weapons-grade nuclear materials there, or if there were high-value soft targets using the university as a cover, then it was, in fact, a legitimate target.

A: That’s why I’m willing to have my opinion changed on the evidence. But the argument “you don’t know” cuts both ways. I know based on doctrine it *shouldn’t* have been targeted, and no justification or evidence has been forthcoming as to *why* it was targeted.  If they have a compelling case, they can release it. If there’s concerns on methods and means of intel gathering, they can brief HASC and SASC (as they have on some of the Caribbean strikes.)  But I think the key thing is the Executive, in its role of commanding the military, doesn’t get a “pass” on checks and balances. We have doctrine for a reason, and we have reasons to act in variance with that doctrine. But with no checks and balances our professional military becomes a military subject to the whims of any President; Republican or Democrat.

Q: I really don’t think Trump and his administration has the time to explain the “why” for every target. Especially if there were high value targets at the location. One small tip to the enemy, one delay, could negate the opportunity to remove the threat. Running a war is not a democratic process. As you very well know, Iran, Hamas, Hezbola, etc are notorious for using schools mosques, hospitals and other civilian buildings and institutions as a cover to prevent them from becoming targets. I think faith in the intel and people planning and executing is necessary for success. We can armchair quarterback this to death but in the end we don’t have the information or knowledge to make a valid judgement call.

A: Of course the military has time. Israeli did it. On every accusation they targeted a hospital or prohibited building, within hours they came out with a package of why they did it. People can of course disagree with that information. But it was out there to disagree with.

And how do I know we can do it? Because, emphasis added, ***we put it in the doctrine to do it.***

I didn’t create that doctrine. It’s not particularly *new* doctrine as you can look at previous versions of the same doctrine and see similar language going back decades. And it’s not like these are outdated editions (like some of our doctrine decades old), these were updated, at least for Air Force and Manual of War in last few years.

If anything the mechanisms to do this and provide this are more automated than ever, and easier to produce the information as to why.

And no, running a war *shouldn’t* be a democratic process. But running the nation, including how we conduct warfare should ought and must be a Republican process if we are to remain a Republic.

There are many countries where political leadership can hide behind the military, using it as they wish without accountability.

But ours shouldn’t be one of them.

Q: Not saying that it was right or conscionable but IRGC have been using mosques and hospitals and other civilian places to hide from Airstrikes.