Former U.S. Military Officials, Experts Blast Biden’s Response After U.S. Troops Killed: ‘Not Impressed At All’

 Former U.S. Military officials and foreign policy experts slammed President Joe Biden on Friday after he authorized a series of strikes against Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the Middle East in response to three U.S. soldiers being killed last weekend.

The strikes come after the Biden administration has repeatedly telegraphed its plans to Iran over the last several days, including general details about when the strikes would likely start, where they would occur, and what they would target.

“U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from United States,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement. “The airstrikes employed more than 125 precision munitions. The facilities that were struck included command and control operations, centers, intelligence centers, rockets, and missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicle storages, and logistics and munition supply chain facilities of militia groups and their IRGC sponsors who facilitated attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces.”

Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg responded to Biden’s response by saying that he was “not impressed at all.”

Kellogg said that U.S. forces have numerous target packages put together every day for the administration to consider and Biden took days to make a decision while warning Iran that the U.S. was coming, thus allowing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders to safely escape.

“Iran doesn’t [want the U.S. to escalate] because Iran knows what we could do to them if we really went after them full scope militarily,” Kellogg said. “Fordow, their military facility that’s enriching uranium, that could be gone, there’s key leadership could be gone. The Iranian Navy gone, refineries gone, we can reduce Iran to a second and third level country, if we wanted to. They know that. And you have to make that threat from us, after they start the fight, credible.”

“And I think what they’re saying right now, is the Americans are afraid of escalation, they are risk averse to escalation, they’ve got leadership and advisors that are adverse to escalation,” he continued. “Instead of just the opposite, instead of them going, I’m going 40 levels deep in a bunker because I know the Americans are coming after me. And the only way you’re going to establish some credibility is to establish a deterrence model that they stop doing this. And it’s going to be hard.”

Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President of Research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said: “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.”

Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at Hudson Institute and the director of its Keystone Defense Initiative, told The Daily Wire that Biden’s weak response was “shockingly backwards.”

 

“The number of strikes — 85 targets — looks high and significant. But this was shockingly backwards,” she said. “The Biden team leaked the time of the attacks and the locations, and after days of delay. There was plenty of time for Iran to move its highest value IRGC commanders and weapons. Rather than eliminating the enemy, it assured him, and even warned him. Rather than make Iran fear the U.S., it gave it reason to mock us. In the days ahead, we’ll learn about the impact of these strikes. Regardless, it’s clear it was less punishing than it could be. And there’s little reason to believe the regime won’t send its proxies to attack U.S. forces again.”

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery said in a statement that Biden’s response was “a long overdue strike.”

“I suspect that the delay in timing will mean most IRGC forces will have packed up their bags and returned to Iran. Even the proxy force numbers may be low,” he said. “This is a good target package for day one. I hope it is part of a sustained campaign over weeks.”