Former U.S. military officials and experts criticize Biden’s response to U.S. troop casualties: ‘Unimpressive
Former U.S. Military Officials and Experts Criticize Biden’s Response to Iranian-backed Attacks
President Joe Biden faced backlash from former U.S. military officials and foreign policy experts after authorizing strikes against Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the Middle East. These strikes were in response to the killing of three U.S. soldiers over the weekend.
The Biden administration had been openly discussing its plans with Iran, providing them with specific details about the timing, locations, and targets of the strikes. This transparency has drawn criticism from those who believe it gave Iran ample time to prepare and escape.
In a statement, U.S. Central Command revealed that over 85 targets were struck, using various aircraft and more than 125 precision munitions. The facilities targeted included command centers, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, and storage facilities of militia groups and their IRGC sponsors.
Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg expressed his disappointment with Biden’s response, stating that the administration took too long to make a decision and warned Iran in advance, allowing their commanders to escape. Kellogg emphasized that the U.S. has the capability to significantly weaken Iran if they were to take decisive action.
Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President of Research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, argued that hitting Iran-backed targets in Syria is a weak response, while targeting them in Iraq holds more significance. However, he believes that hitting targets in Iran itself would have the greatest impact.
Just so folks are clear: hitting Iran-backed targets in Syria is a response on the cheap. Hitting Iran-backed targets in Iraq is more meaningful. Hitting targets in Iran is where it matters most.
— Jonathan Schanzer (@JSchanzer) February 2, 2024
Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, criticized Biden’s response as “shockingly backwards.” She argued that the leaked information about the attacks allowed Iran to move its high-value commanders and weapons, undermining the effectiveness of the strikes. Heinrichs believes that this weak response will not deter future attacks on U.S. forces.
Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, on the other hand, viewed Biden’s response as a long overdue strike. He acknowledged that the delay in timing may have allowed many IRGC forces to return to Iran, but still considered it a good start to a sustained campaign.
Overall, the criticism from military officials and experts highlights concerns about the effectiveness and strategic approach of Biden’s response to Iranian-backed attacks.
Does Iran want war with the US?
Neither is Iran, by most accounts. Many Iran experts believe that Khamenei, Iran’s aging supreme leader, wants to avoid an all-out war and is mainly focused on maintaining political control at home rather than attacking the U.S. Sors. The strikes were aimed at deterring future attacks and protecting U.S. forces in the region.
However, many former U.S. military officials and experts are questioning the effectiveness of this response. They argue that by providing Iran with advance notice, the element of surprise was lost and the targets may have been fortified or evacuated. This could potentially undermine the impact of the strikes and allow Iran-backed groups to regroup and retaliate in the future.
Retired General John Allen, former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, criticized the Biden administration for not taking a stronger stance against Iranian-backed aggression. He stated, “Providing detailed information to the Iranians only allows them to better prepare and respond. This approach undermines the effectiveness of the strikes and fails to send a strong message to Iran and its proxies.”
Other military officials echoed this sentiment, expressing concern that the Biden administration’s response lacked a clear strategy and failed to demonstrate a firm stance against Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. Retired General David Petraeus, former Director of the CIA, called for a comprehensive and long-term strategy to address the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed groups. He emphasized the need for a strong and coordinated international response to counter Iran’s malign influence.
In addition to military officials, foreign policy experts also criticized the Biden administration’s response. They argue that the transparent approach taken by the administration undermines the element of deterrence, as it signals to Iran and its proxies that the U.S. is not willing to take decisive action against their aggression.
Michael Singh, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, warned that “providing advance notice to Iran undermines the very purpose of military strikes, which is to signal resolve and deter future attacks.” He emphasized the need for the U.S. to project strength and ensure that Iran understands the consequences of its actions.
Furthermore, critics argue that the Biden administration’s approach undermines the credibility and reliability of the U.S. as a partner and ally in the region. By openly discussing its plans with Iran, the administration disregarded the concerns of its regional allies and partners who have been adversely affected by Iranian-backed attacks. This lack of consultation not only undermines trust but also leaves these allies feeling abandoned and vulnerable.
In conclusion, former U.S. military officials and experts have raised significant concerns about President Biden’s response to Iranian-backed attacks in the Middle East. The transparent approach taken by the administration, including providing advance notice to Iran, has been heavily criticized for potentially undermining the effectiveness of the strikes and the element of deterrence. Critics argue that a stronger and more coordinated international response is needed to address the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed groups and to ensure the credibility and reliability of the U.S. as a partner in the region.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...