With the media and many Democrats seemingly mourning the death of terror leader Qasem Soleimani, it’s necessary to set the narrative straight. Regardless of its strategic value, political implications, or one’s party affiliation, it is evident that Soleimani’s demise was just. Head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, Soleimani was responsible for orchestrating the killing of countless American citizens over the past two decades and so his assassination is a morally sound consequence.
According to the Department of Defense, Soleimani not only approved the recent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad but he “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. [He] and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.”
Beyond directly coordinated attacks, Soleimani perpetuated countless more acts of terror through proxy conflicts. As a direct response to his participation in the killing of American citizens, his death was a legitimate use of self-defense on behalf of the U.S. government. Yaron Brook put it this way, “The killing of Soleimani is both good [and] commendable,” as he has “the blood of Americans on his hands.” It should be noted that Brook is neither a fan of the Trump administration nor does he think taking Soleimani out has a big impact on the future.
Yet some people would rather Soleimani still be alive, people like Kyle Kulinski and actress Rose McGowan. The latter of whom apologized to Iran and claimed the U.S. was a terrorist regime. The former glorified Soleimani in a tirade that amounted to nothing short of Shiite Islamist propaganda.
One writer at the Washington Post argues that Soleimani didn’t deserve to die and that the strike that resulted in his death was a poor move politically. Although he admits that Soleimani was a bad guy, he argues being a bad guy does not justify killing him. He writes, “[T]he world is full of government officials who are bad guys. How many of them do we intend to assassinate? And how is that likely to ensure that only good guys take their place?”
There is some truth to this argument. The world is full of corrupt and evil government officials, but that doesn’t sanction the U.S. government taking them all out. However, the contrast is clear. Soleimani wasn’t just another bad guy among many other bad government officials in the world. Soleimani was responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans.
That is what separates him from every evil or corrupt foreign government official. The purpose of the U.S. government is to protect the individual rights of Americans. Even if someone does simply replace him, it doesn’t detract from the validity of eliminating him.
It isn’t complicated. Soleimani killed Americans and so America killed him. Sitting congresspeople, media figureheads, and celebrities should not be touting Soleimani as anything more than he was: a terrorist. Critiques of the Trump administration’s overarching goals, the strategic effectiveness of taking out Soleimani, whether he should have gone to Congress first, and on deterrence theory as a broader concept are all valid debates to be had. That being said, there is no doubt that Soleimani’s actions alone warranted the termination of his reign of terror.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.