3 U.S. Soldiers killed in Jordan drone attack

[Comrade Funk]

Three US troops killed in drone attack in Jordan, at least two dozen injured

Three US Army soldiers were killed and at least two dozen service members were injured in a drone attack overnight on a small US outpost in Jordan, US officials told CNN, marking the first time US troops have been killed by enemy fire in the Middle East since the beginning of the Gaza war.

The killing of three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan near the border with Syria is a significant escalation of an already-precarious situation in the Middle East. Officials said the drone was fired by Iran-backed militants and appeared to come from Syria.

[quesaisje]

As the article notes, these drone attacks have become regular events at US bases in the region. A lot of analysts were warning that it was just a matter of time before deaths resulted.

It's hard to understand the logic of de-escalation that resulted in putting troops all over the region, in bases that are known to be vulnerable to these attacks, and doing nothing as they occurred repeatedly.

[Storr]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

What is a "full-throated response" here short of war? Launching strikes on some Iranian proxies? That probably doesn't go far enough for the hardliners, but anything more than that and you have a non-trivial risk of a larger conflict.

[bilaps]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

Or they could go home and they take care of their own border rather than Syria's with Jordan

[CumbrianLefty]

Demanding "tough responses" without saying what those might actually be, always grates.

[All Along The Watchtower]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

What is a "full-throated response" here short of war? Launching strikes on some Iranian proxies? That probably doesn't go far enough for the hardliners, but anything more than that and you have a non-trivial risk of a larger conflict.

We could have asked that late great statesman Saddam Hussein how an all-out war with Iran went, and whether it helped or hurt the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy.

[quesaisje]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3659496/dod-identifies-army-casualties/

The Department of Defense announced today the death of three Army Reserve soldiers who were supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.

Sgt. William Jerome Rivers, 46, of Carrollton, Ga.; Spc. Kennedy Ladon Sanders, 24, of Waycross, Ga.; and Spc. Breonna Alexsondria Moffett, 23, of Savannah, Ga., died Jan. 28, 2024, in Jordan, when a one-way unmanned aerial system (OWUAS) impacted their container housing units. The incident is under investigation.

Rivers, Sanders and Moffett were assigned to the 718th Engineer Company, 926th Engineer Battalion, 926th Engineer Brigade, Fort Moore, Ga.

These are the first US combat deaths in years, and this thread has fewer replies than one about a soup spill at the Louvre.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The fact that all 3 deaths are young black people from Georgia somehow made it hurt even more for me. 2/3 of them were younger than me.

[Blue3]

First, why are we even in Jordan???

Second, I'm hearing reports that the drone was identified as American... could this be a tragic "friendly fire" mistake?

Third, many more U.S. soldiers have died without us going to war. It's terrible, it's a tragedy... it's not a case for yet another theater of war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

What is a "full-throated response" here short of war? Launching strikes on some Iranian proxies? That probably doesn't go far enough for the hardliners, but anything more than that and you have a non-trivial risk of a larger conflict.

We could have asked that late great statesman Saddam Hussein how an all-out war with Iran went, and whether it helped or hurt the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy.

We were too busy helping both sides to worry about things like that.

Anyways, does this drone attack have anything to do with Iran?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

First, why are we even in Jordan???

Second, I'm hearing reports that the drone was identified as American... could this be a tragic "friendly fire" mistake?

Third, many more U.S. soldiers have died without us going to war. It's terrible, it's a tragedy... it's not a case for yet another theater of war.

Jordan is a US ally, so this definitely wasn't some off-the-books scandal.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

We shouldn't have soldiers there in the first place.

RIP to these young men, who I'm sure were good people, but by God the powers that be are going to use this to involve us further, aren't they?

[LabourJersey]

Demanding "tough responses" without saying what those might actually be, always grates.

Phrases like that are just ways to keep moving goalposts.

"Oh that response? I said tough responses, but not like that!"

I don't pretend to know what's the best next move for the USA here - this requires *some* response (unless it was friendly fire), but the situation in the Middle East is so tenuous that it's important not to overreact - consider the events of 1914 more than the events of 1938-39.

[quesaisje]

First, why are we even in Jordan???

Second, I'm hearing reports that the drone was identified as American... could this be a tragic "friendly fire" mistake?

Third, many more U.S. soldiers have died without us going to war. It's terrible, it's a tragedy... it's not a case for yet another theater of war.

These drone attacks happen all the time. There have been injuries at these bases, but no deaths, and coverage of these events has been muted. This one got through because they mistook it for one of their own on an expected return.

I doubt that many Americans could explain why these soldiers were in harm's way. There are probably plenty of people who are engaged enough to be posting on this site who didn't even know we were there. The same is undoubtedly true of a lot of those now demanding that the US lob a few bombs to prove something.

[CumbrianLefty]

Have the earlier reports this might have been friendly fire been settled either way yet?

[bilaps]

It was not a friendly fire, it was Shahed drone which got through cause he was mistaken for American one returning to the base. Or that's just official version of the story.

Jordan base is essentially connected to Al Tanf garrison in Syria in which US and CIA have long been used for a HQ for Syrian rebels while they fought Assad. Official reason why are they there now is ISIS, but ISIS really is no reason, Iran's groups and Assad have no love for ISIS and they fight them in the desert too. ISIS at this moment is no real threat. So, they're there for Iran.

[Sir Mohamed]

The fact that all 3 deaths are young black people from Georgia somehow made it hurt even more for me. 2/3 of them were younger than me.

RIP.

I hope Biden orders a strong relatalation, though he needs to be careful not to expand the war. It's a tricky situation.

[Vosem]

Demanding "tough responses" without saying what those might actually be, always grates.

It's hard to know what response might be appropriate without an understanding of the situation on the ground which is probably only available to those reading intelligence reports. The most recent truly largescale American response to an action from Iran, after the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in Kuwaiti territorial waters, was a full attack on ships of the Iranian navy...but that was also all the way back in 1988. (Of course, this time there are casualties -- in 1988 the mine was struck with no loss of life, although in the ensuing naval battle two Americans died.) Whether something like that is reasonable today is up for debate, though there's been some discussion about just how viable Houthi targeting of shipping is without being provided targets by the IRGC.

Have the earlier reports this might have been friendly fire been settled either way yet?

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1751995987160084873

Seems like the initial reaction of people on the ground was that it was probably friendly fire, but further investigation revealed that it was not.

[TheReckoning]

We shouldn’t have troops there to begin with.

[wangaratta]

"Pivotal moment here for the Biden administration. Anything less than a full-throated response against #Iran will invite further attacks against U.S. troops. Half-assed response would also leave Biden vulnerable to attacks from domestic political rivals accusing him of being soft."

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1751652394520195180?s=20

What is a "full-throated response" here short of war? Launching strikes on some Iranian proxies? That probably doesn't go far enough for the hardliners, but anything more than that and you have a non-trivial risk of a larger conflict.

We could have asked that late great statesman Saddam Hussein how an all-out war with Iran went, and whether it helped or hurt the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45t79lrxaOA

[Ferguson97]

US launches retaliatory strikes on Iranian-linked militia targets in Iraq and Syria
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/us-strikes-iraq-syria/index.html

[GeneralMacArthur]

Everyone saying "I don't know why we were even in Jordan" or "we shouldn't have any troops in Jordan" is just revealing a sadly widespread ignorance of what's up in the Middle East.  It's really annoying how every single American has so many strong opinions about America's role in the world and how we should resolve various conflicts and how much our defense budget should be, and then doesn't know basic things like "why would America have any reason to be in Jordan."

Like, have you already forgotten ISIS?  Do you think all those guys just disappeared after we liberated Raqqa?  Who do you think these Iran-backed militias are and what do you think their objectives are?  Are you happy with what's happened in Afghanistan and if so do you think it would be good if the same thing happened in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan?  Do you think ISIS was a one-of-a-kind historical aberration forged by unique circumstances that could never be repeated (assuming you don't realize that ISIS is still fighting battles all across the Middle East)?

It's a real shame that Americans have become so pampered and insulated that they literally don't have to care at all what's going on in the Middle East.  It's just like Cambodia or Rwanda.  Sure something bad is happening over there but why do I care when it doesn't affect me at all?  And that's generously assuming you're even aware of the conflict at all.

[Good Habit]

Another imperialist war crime...

Any military presence abroad violates the sovereignty of the country that has foreign troops based on its soil - this country becomes a de facto "protectorate".

- Sometimes, if your country is invaded by a strong third party, allowing another country to fight alongside you, to push the invaders out, might become the "lesser evil". But there is no such thing as love or true "friendship" in politics, and you should always be aware, that the country "supporting" you is following it's own agenda, has ulterior motives...

But if you allow foreign troops on your soil outside times of actual war, you make your self in to a puppet of the larger "allied" power - or - to put it bluntly, you abandoned your sovereignty, which is usually called treason...  And if a government has committed treason, it has lost most - if not all - of its legitimacy...

So, to put it simply - from a sovereigntist POV -  there are NO US-forces legally outside internationally recognized US-territory - there are all "occupation forces" - even if they are there with the "consent" of the puppet government (as has been the case for many years in wars in South-Vietnam or more recently in Afghanistan) - and they are always legitimate targets.

This is even more applicable, if the US forces are present against the wish of the (mostly) internationally recognized government of a country, as in the case of Syria..

US forces in the al-Tanf base have exactly the same legitimacy as Russian forces in Mariupol - (that is none at all) - their presence in itself is a war crime (war of aggression against a sovereign country..)

(OR - to make it more simple - the US army has fought 2.5 legitimate wars in it's entire history - it was the "Good" side in the ARW and the ACW - and the "lesser evil" in WW2 - all other wars ever fought by the US have been illegitimate - imperialist wars of aggression / control / extermination of indigenous population etc...) BTW - in this, the US is NOT an exception - at least 99% of all wars are fought for criminal intent (power grabs).

[Lord Halifax]

(OR - to make it more simple - the US army has fought 2.5 legitimate wars in it's entire history - it was the "Good" side in the ARW and the ACW - and the "lesser evil" in WW2 - all other wars ever fought by the US have been illegitimate - imperialist wars of aggression / control / extermination of indigenous population etc...) BTW - in this, the US is NOT an exception - at least 99% of all wars are fought for criminal intent (power grabs).

So Kim Il Sung should have been allowed to conquer South Korea and Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to annex Kuwait?