Has Donald Trump Just Won WW3?

In WW1 millions of soldiers were slaughtered in the front lines in Flanders. Hardly any of the generals who were commanding them were killed. In fact I can’t think of any. The principal British general, Douglas Haig, survived the war. So did French generals like Foch and Nivelle and Pétain. And also German generals like Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Might not the war have ended much earlier if, instead of ordinary soldiers being killed in millions, it had been the generals who had been the principal casualties?

When Richard III was killed during the battle of Bosworth in 1485, very arguably his death ensured the victory of his opponent, Henry Tudor. For after his death, his soldiers became leaderless, and there seems to have been nobody else to rally behind.

And when Julius Caesar was assassinated in Rome in 44 BC, the legions under his control became leaderless and ineffective. There followed a civil war,

And when Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC, that was the end of his all-conquering army. The army became divided among rival generals with their own territories (e.g. Ptolemy in Egypt).

So there would seem to be a very good argument that if you want to defeat an enemy, you shouldn’t fight their foot soldiers: you should go after their leaders.

And that’s exactly what Donald Trump has just done, by assassinating Iran’s top general, Qassem Suleimani, in what seems to have been a very high precision, night-time air strike. It seems to have thrown the Iranian leadership into confusion. Perhaps that shouldn’t be a surprise. According to some reports Suleimani wasn’t just Iran’s top general, but was the No. 2 man in Iran below Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. What if he had actually been the real leader, with Khamenei a figurehead?

Trump said that he had acted to prevent a war. And perhaps he has succeeded, simply by killing the principal military leader who had been planning a war.

If Napoleon had been assassinated in 1800, or Hitler in 1929, would there have still been a Napoleonic war, or WW2? Both were charismatic leaders, and without them their armies would have been leaderless. And Hitler seemed to have been very much aware that he was likely to be assassinated, and spent much of his life under several metres of re-enforced concrete. Equally, a charismatic general like George Patton carried pearl-handled revolvers on his hip, probably not because he was brash and showy, but because he too knew that he was likely to be subject to attempted assassination, and intended to put up a fight.

There’s been talk of WW3 starting in the wake of Suleimani’s assassination. But perhaps WW3 will not be fought between armies, but between the generals commanding them. And the US army does target leaders: Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, and now Qassem Suleimani. And it makes perfect sense to do so. If nothing else it’s a lot cheaper to use a single missile to kill a top leader than it is to fire off millions of shells, or drop thousands of tons of bombs. WW3 might be one in which the top leadership of both sides are targeted, using accurate intelligence and drones.

Maybe Donald Trump just won WW3, using a single cruise missile to decapitate Iran’s leadership?

It seems he’s not stopping there:

Round Two: US Drone Airstrikes Kill Six Pro-Iran Militia Commanders

Iraqi official media has also confirm that two vehicles were targeted north of Baghdad, carrying commanders of the pro-Iran militias in the PMUs.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Has Donald Trump Just Won WW3?

  1. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Well done Mr Trump i say. Iran will have to be dealt with. This is a good start !

  2. decnine says:

    re WW1: I recall reading somewhere that the numbers of British Generals (Brigadiers and above) killed in WW1 was greater pro rata than in any of the other combatant armies. British Admirals did little better.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think this was true of the officer class in the British army, but not of the top generals who spent much of their time in chateaus well behind the lines, and very little of it anywhere near the front line. Same with French and German generals.

  3. smokingscot says:

    Just need to set the record straight, Frank. It wasn’t a cruise missile, they used a drone – with full details reported by this lot.


    Same as they used last night to assassinate half a dozen top people of groups associated with Iran.

    Those things can fly for up to 18 hours and fire missiles for sure, but not the cruise type. The reason being they can use on board cameras to make certain the people they want are in the vehicle.

    What’s glaringly obvious is the US has very accurate intelligence at the highest level within the command structure of both the Iraq and Iranian military, to know which flight the Generals were on, as well a the vehicles, number plate and route last night’s casualties were using.

    So their lot need to find out who they are and to quit using anything that can be monitored. Oh and make sure their top brass turn off their smart phones (and store them in a suitable container) whenever they travel.

    You just got to face palm at the dumbness. Same thing with our own military,; high command had to tell their rank and file to quit using certain apps because they tracked the twits using them.

  4. Dr Evil says:

    Iran needed a good kicking. It was used to doing things with impunity. Well, it pulled the Tiger’s tail once too often. Got a real kicking in return. Do it again and there will be glowing craters next time. Well done President Trump.

  5. Robbo says:

    On you tube there is a site called c90adventures a young man travelling around the world on a honda motorbike, concerning his travels in Iran he said ” If i was injured and penniless i,d like it to be in Iran because the people are so nice”

  6. Clicky says:

  7. slugbop007 says:

    I just read this remark from EG says a minute ago.

    EG says: December 29, 2019 at 5:29 pm They are getting ready to imprint “smoking kills” on every cigarette. That’s verbal abuse in print, I think.

    Dear EG says, Do you have any idea what could be the chemical composition of these new ‘smoking kills’ cigarette imprints ? Will they be Cerified Organic (i.e. Green) or contain toxic substances? It’s also worse than verbal abuse, it’s invasion of privacy.



  8. waltc says:

    About yesterday’s dead end (for some of you ) link to #70. I posted a PS on that thread but will again here. This link works for me but oddly leads only to a whole conference worth of studies among which the one I cite is on page 403 and the quote I gave is on 406. I must have originally found the study thru a simpler route–maybe a link w/i another study?– but don’t recall how. Nonetheless, this link to the conference still works for me and then plug in p 406 or search fir the word “smokers.”

    Click to access SOC2010.pdf

    On topic: last news I heard last night, some are saying tne second strike wasn’t ours. If that’s true, I merely speculate it was Israel’s and that perhaps the original intelligence that led us to the first strike also came from them

  9. Pingback: A Fading Crisis | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.