The U.S. has made another blunder in the Middle East which will impact us for years to come. Will it lead to a much wider war? That’s hard to say, though speaking as a historian of the Middle East and an analyst of its politics, I would say it is not especially likely. But it will have severe consequences, and it will cost us in blood and treasure. I think we have a right to ask why it happened, and to consider our standing in the world.Was it legal to kill Qassim Soleimani? That depends on who you ask. Assassinations are against both U.S. and international law, though his designation in 2011 as a terrorist means there is a paper-thin justification under post-9/11 laws-- the same laws which have allowed us to engage in military activity in ten countries or more. So yes, we murdered someone, but we called him a terrorist so that might make it okay under the extremely-broad authorizations Congress has given to our presidents.Consider what happened, though: We killed a senior officlal of a foreign government with which we are not at war, in a third country in which we did not have authorization to act, and in the process killed citizens of that country. We violated Iraqi sovereignty, and under international law we committed an act of war against Iran. Whether they retaliate for it is almost beside the point-- we have already made war against Iran, and we will have to deal with some inevitable fall-out from that.But whether or not it was legal, was it right to kill Qassim Soleimani? If you ask Representative Ken Calvert, it definitely was. He has been crowing about what a bad guy Soleimani is, and how killing him was our duty or something. Was Soleimani a bad guy? Sure, he was. His organization has been involved in some terrible affairs in Iraq and Syria. But is this a reason to kill, and if so, where does it end? Who do we kill next?I have some questions for Representative Calvert and the voters of the 42nd. First, are we a country that respects due process and the rule of law, and do we mean anything when we sign treaties or swear to uphold the Constitution? Or are we, instead, a rogue state that feels above the law, beholden to nothing, able to kill or make war whenever and wherever it pleases? I know which of the two I prefer, and which Ken Calvert prefers.Our Constitution intended a limited government focused on maintaining peace at home. Is it right that our tax dollars, and our young men and women, be used in a series of endless wars overseas? Many of these actions do not make us safer-- they breed resentment and create enemies, which are then used as pretext for more killing, in an endless cycle of violence and corporate greed. We have continued to fight in eight countries and increased the number of troops several times. What do we get for that?I would like to see an America which serves as a moral example to the world, concerned with the betterment of its citizens. We need to stop feeding the war machine, and start building houses and hospitals, roads and bridges, factories and farms. Our living standards are literally falling, and instead of improving the lives of people here, Representative Calvert would rather start more wars. I think that we deserve better.
Liam is a professor of history specializing in the history of the Middle Eastern. His opponent, Ken Calvert, is a crooked real estate developer who has been caught several times using government power to enrich himself. If you like what Liam had to say and you think he would make a good replacement for Calvert, please consider contributing what you can to his campaign at the special California Is Not Blue Enough thermometer on the right.