One of the more depressing aspects of the whole Qassem Soleimani story is the way that so many talking heads in the MSM, along with Democrats, are describing it as an “assassination.” Our own Taylor Millard jumped into that debate last night and, disappointingly, decided to adopt the same language. Interestingly, he based his conclusion on both the standard dictionary definition of the word and Soleimani’s alleged position as a legitimate political and military figure in the Iranian government. Allow me to disagree with both. But first, let’s recall Taylor’s plunge into Merriam-Webster.

Merriam-Webster defines assassination as, “murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons: the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader).” Soleimani’s death fits this description given his role within the Iranian government. This is troublesome since the federal government is not supposed to conduct political assassinations based on multiple executive orders dating back to the Gerald Ford presidency.

If we were doing nothing more than grading high school English papers, this explanation might suffice. But what it’s lacking is a massive amount of context. The two key words and phrases Taylor leans on are “murder” and “for political reasons.” Both of these are highly problematic when considering the inhumation of Qassem Soleimani.

First of all, murder has a very specific meaning in legal terms as well as religious beliefs. And “murder” is not something that happens on the battlefield. Nor does homicide. And let us make no mistake about this… Soleimani was engaged in warfare outside the borders of his own country, effecting or abetting the deaths of many people, including Israelis, Syrians, Iraquis and American military troops. The Quds Force has been designated as a terrorist organization for a dozen years by not only the United States but Canada, Egypt and other nations. Their violent activities spanned that entire region and across much of the globe.

In short, Soleimani was fighting a war. And he wasn’t fighting on the side of the good guys. When you engage in warfare against the west you run the risk of being killed in combat.

That brings us to the other point being made about Soleimani. It’s the idea that he was somehow a legitimate political and military figure in Iran. Here’s part of what Taylor had to say on that subject.

There are still concerns, particularly due to Soleimani’s position within the Iranian government. He’s not Osama bin Laden, who was in no position of state authority when he was killed, or even former ISIS leader Abu al-Baghdadi. Soleimani was a member of the Iranian government, a government we are not at war with since Congress has never declared war or passed a declaration authorizing the use of military force. It’s akin to the United States deciding to conduct so-called lethal action against a Chinese or Russian general because they happened to be visiting Iraq.

I’ve known Taylor for quite a while now and consider him a good friend, but this analysis is simply off base. And the analogies being drawn here aren’t applicable.

Declaring Soleimani to be a political and military figure in Iran may well be true, at least to a certain extent, but only when he was in Iran. If he was just another general who stayed with his units in the IRGC, that would certainly be the case. Of course, if that’s all he’d done, most of us would likely never have heard of him and we wouldn’t have wasted a very expensive drone to take him out.

But that wasn’t the case. In fact, Soleimani was the one actively engaged in the type of activities that Taylor is implicitly accusing the United States of and he’d been doing it for years. The United States didn’t extend its reach inside the borders of Iran and take out one of their leaders. Soleimani is the one who left Iran, leading the Quds Force, a group correctly defined as a separate unit of the IRGC engaging in “unconventional warfare” and ” extraterritorial operations.” If you need that translated for you, it means that they were entering countries that the nation of Iran was not officially at war with and engaging in unconventional attacks, either directly or by proxy. In other words… terrorism

Trying to compare this situation with a hypothetical mission where the United States kills a Chinese or Russian general who “happens to be visiting Iraq” is completely without merit. Soleimani wasn’t “visiting” Syria, Jordan or Afghanistan. He was attacking (or providing funding and training for others to attack) groups Iran opposes. And he got caught out in the open by American intelligence assets and was blown to multiple pieces. As he should have been.

It’s bad enough that we have presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren going around trying to describe Soleimani as a “high ranking government official” in Iran. We don’t need to be muddying the waters further with these sorts of complaints. The monster is dead. Good riddance.