Remember, the narrative is not synonymous with the truth. Read this article published by the Washington Post twice, first with a mainstream perspective, then with your Q filter turned on:
In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.
They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.
After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.
By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
Who, one wonders, are these “top” American military officials and Pentagon officials? To whom, or what, are they loyal? And how tactically capable are they if they are foolish enough to engage in this sort of transparent managing-up with a personality like the god-emperor?