Targeting Political Leadership

[DarthAmerica]

It seems that the United States circumvents the treaty on targeting political leaders by first declaring them to be war criminals in front of the U.N. and then targeting them during official military operations. Why not remove the veil and just target them preemptively and by suprise? As in ASSASINATE. As in, "Suprise Mr. Chavez! Here is a JDAM in your lap!" I Realise that such actions would have considerable consequences. But when you think about it, why not? As opposed to having to invade and commit enourmous recources to wars we could possibly avoid. The U.S. DoD and intelligence services have an almost infinate means to do conduct these kinds of decapitation strikes. Why not use them in places such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or even larger opponents? I would be interested in discussing the pros and cons of these types of operations as opposed to full wars to achieve the same goal.


Thanks
DA

 

[thegoldenhorde]

That kind of action is not really effective in the long run. Simply killing or otherwise eliminaring a nations leader can unleash worse consequences than what was there before(hmmm...IRAQ!). Also, these sort of heavy handed tactics are exactly the reason why the US is disliked today. Targeted killigns are exceptable for use against terrorists and enemy military leaders in a state of war, but the US cannot simply go around killing heads of state is does not like. and its not that easy either. Look at how hard the US tried to kill Castro in the 50s and 60s. It would be even harder to kill someone as well protected as say Kim-Jong Il, even if you did it with an air stike. And lets say that the Air Force bombs the Presidential Palace in Venezeula. That is an act of war. Every action has a reaction.

 

[DarthAmerica]

That kind of action is not really effective in the long run. Simply killing or otherwise eliminaring a nations leader can unleash worse consequences than what was there before(hmmm...IRAQ!).

That opinion is completely unsupported. Also the mention of Iraq and the context in which you mention it suggest ignorance about the rational and logic behind OIF.

Also, these sort of heavy handed tactics are exactly the reason why the US is disliked today.

OK so basically we have nothing to lose.

Targeted killigns are exceptable for use against terrorists and enemy military leaders in a state of war, but the US cannot simply go around killing heads of state is does not like.

Thats your opinion and its factually inaccurate. We have the means to kill just about anybody we want assuming we can locate them to within the CEP of our ICBM/SLBM force. Not saying to use that particular method. Just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of your statement.

and its not that easy either. Look at how hard the US tried to kill Castro in the 50s and 60s. It would be even harder to kill someone as well protected as say Kim-Jong Il, even if you did it with an air stike.

The 50's and 60's? Do you actually think that the difficulty was in the methodology? Situational Awareness RE: heads of state has come a long way from half a century ago.

And lets say that the Air Force bombs the Presidential Palace in Venezeula. That is an act of war. Every action has a reaction.

As opposed to first actually going to war, potentially taking thousands of casuaties, then killing or capturing the head of state? How do you think the reactions would differ from a decapitated nation vs a nation with its leadership element still emplace?

Admin: Comments Deleted. It's unnecessary and adversarial to make comments like this.

 

[Michael RVR]

I'm going to be blunt.

If you start killing anyone you don't like, the rest of the world WILL be against you. None of this 'oh woe is my someone knocked down a building the world is against me' crap.

If you think the world is against you and you have nothing to lose.. well.. i think you need to open your eyes a little.

Also, i think you should'nt be so dismissive of what thegoldenhorde said, I think its fairly accurate.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I'm going to be blunt.

If you start killing anyone you don't like, the rest of the world WILL be against you. None of this 'oh woe is my someone knocked down a building the world is against me' crap.

If you think the world is against you and you have nothing to lose.. well.. i think you need to open your eyes a little.

Also, i think you should'nt be so dismissive of what thegoldenhorde said, I think its fairly accurate.

Right now, the US could officially decide to wage war on any nation it wanted. But we dont because any use of force has to have a balanced risk vs reward analysis. This includes targeting leadership which we currently do but under the guise of larger operations.

Quaddaffi

Noriega

Saddam

Milosevic

Castro

and others have all been targeted is you review the history. The idea is to remove the vaguery so as to benefit from the deterent value and if necessary minimize the scale of any conflict.

 

[thegoldenhorde]

Your missing the point. I'm not saying the US doesn't have the capability to killl most world leaders. It does. Some, like Kim Jong Il and Saddam in his day would have been exceptions as their movement is erratic, they are paranoid and spend a lot of time in bunkers etc. What I'm saying is that without a definate reason, with a threat, the US, or any other nation, cannot legally kill:drunk the heads of other governments. You cannot simply go around bombing nations beause you do not like them. Any gains that would be had from this policy would be far outweighed by the losses in international credibility and the support of our allies.One more thing- As soon as Hugo Chavez and a bunch Iranian ayatollahs go up in clouds of smoke, everybody else who thinks that they might be on the list will MASSIVELY increase their security. It is not a wise or practical policy.

As opposed to first taking thousands of casualties first and then killing or capturing the head of state?

Without attacking them there wouldn't be a war in the first place! Unless an attack is imminent, in which case it is ok for the US to attack the enemy's head of state as it is a preemptive strike.

 

[Cootamundra]

It seems that the United States circumvents the treaty on targeting political leaders by first declaring them to be war criminals in front of the U.N. and then targeting them during official military operations. Why not remove the veil and just target them preemptively and by suprise? As in ASSASINATE. As in, "Suprise Mr. Chavez! Here is a JDAM in your lap!"

Darth, where would you be without an opportunity to lite internet discussion bush fires You do love it don't you!!!
nfloorl:

I Realise that such actions would have considerable consequences. But when you think about it, why not? As opposed to having to invade and commit enourmous recources to wars we could possibly avoid. The U.S. DoD and intelligence services have an almost infinate means to do conduct these kinds of decapitation strikes. Why not use them in places such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or even larger opponents? I would be interested in discussing the pros and cons of these types of operations as opposed to full wars to achieve the same goal. Thanks DA

As this is a forum for discussing important defence related matters let me have a crack at responding. Mind you, I won't have time to respond over and over again therefore you may not get your usual level of enjoyment out of telling me how wrong I am

I think the idea of sanctioned assasinations lacks long-term vision. Certainly the strategy has merit in certain cases, you go in your next post to make the point that 1 death (via some sort of military assasin type strike) versus full scale war and possibly thousands of deaths sounds like a great idea. In fact it is a great idea if all you want to do is achieve the objective of removing said individual. But I believe that using assasinations as a formal method without declaring war does little with regards to maintaining the 'moral high-ground'.

Now I've seen you discuss similar topics before and I think you are going to argue the line that says 'we (the US) fight to win' and that in whatever circumstance the US can and will use whatever means necessary to win a conflict. I actually I agree with this to a certain extent. Certainly, if you find yourself in a war then nearly all means should be used to ensure victory. And in any 'true' war scenario the US is well placed to emerge victorious, for one, the US is by far and away the strongest nation on this earth. However if the US where to take on a strategy of sanctioned killing of whomever the nation had a problem with (Saddam, Chavez etc etc) then eventually the US would come to see that this approach whilst fine in the short-term had nothing going for it in the long-term.

Why is that? Well for one in the short-term you remove whoever it is that is causing you so much trouble but over time the continued use of this policy would result in a major back-lash in international public opinion. Eventually this could result in a far worse situation then those it was originally used to counter. There are far more sophisticated and resonable methods to ensure a positive outcome. When a nation or coalition has the weight of positive public opinion behind it then so much more can be achieved (see GW1 vs GW2).

By way of facts to back up my opinion I offer you Israel's sanctioned killing of Hamas leadership over the last 3 years. Despite Hamas losing a succession of senior leaders has the approach done anything to improve the situation? I would argue no it has not. Instead Hamas has (through effective local governance AND by continued exploitation of anti Israel feelings - which are only further enflamed by each example of Israeli assasinations) moved into a position of DEMOCRATIC power in the state of Palestine. "How could this be" all and sundry cried when Hamas gained power several months ago during general elections, well of course it was for a number of reasons but I believe that the Israel's loss of the 'moral' high-ground had been a major contributor. Israeli killing of Hamas leaders nearly always involved killing unarmed/unconnected civilians and these pictures only go to reinforce the view that Israel isn't playing fair. Now please don't get me wrong, Hamas DO NOT play fair at all, they have been and probably continue to be terrorists but none can deny that they've now been democratically elected.

Imagine a world where the US killed off ANYONE that the President and/or congress decided they didn't like. Sure the US armed forces could do it. But where would that leave the US in the eyes of the rest of the world. The US would in fact become nothing more than those it despised. I have no doubt that in any 'real' war scenario the US maintains a very high probability of winning. But not all issues or problems require force. Mind you some do - i.e. for Osama and his ilk, killing them would be justified, but killing them after capture and then dragging them through court in NYC would be FAR more valuable. Oh, and Chavez, who's worried about him?! GWB just needs to improve on the rehtoric, contribute handsomely to Chavez's favourite charity (i.e hios farmers) and give Venezula 'favoured nation status' - Chavez just wants to be loved

Cheers mate....

 

[DarthAmerica]

Your missing the point. I'm not saying the US doesn't have the capability to killl most world leaders. It does. Some, like Kim Jong Il and Saddam in his day would have been exceptions as their movement is erratic, they are paranoid and spend a lot of time in bunkers etc. What I'm saying is that without a definate reason, with a threat, the US, or any other nation, cannot legally kill:drunk the heads of other governments.

I think you are missing the point. Of course there has to be a reason. When there is, we kill the leadership. I'm not suggesting that the POTUS make a S list and order the DoD to kill said individuals. Reason is clear and present danger to the interest of the United States. In regard to legality. There are many ways to circumvent the law as has been done in the past. Either that or preferably officially change it.

 

[DarthAmerica]

By way of facts to back up my opinion I offer you Israel's sanctioned killing of Hamas leadership over the last 3 years.

I would say this is a bad analogy to what I'm suggesting. Israel's sanction killings werent allowed to work AND they took place after the start of hostilities.

Imagine a world where the US killed off ANYONE that the President and/or congress decided they didn't like. Sure the US armed forces could do it. But where would that leave the US in the eyes of the rest of the world.

You see, this is whats going to make discussion of this topic difficult. Framing the debate with "The US kills off people it doesnt like" is a flase pretense. What I am suggesting is the killing of people who are actually threatening the national security interest of the United States. People like the current Iranian President or possibly the North Korean Leader(I dont know what title he uses on a day to day basis...lol). This is a step to be taken only after that person actually is a threat, after careful consideration by our military/political leadership and when the alternative is larger scale war.

If you think what I'm saying is not done today then I would encourage you to read about the way "Shock and Awe" started. The very first strikes were aiming for Saddam personally.

 

[thegoldenhorde]

If you think what I'm saying is not done today then I would encourage you to read about the way "Shock and Awe" started. The very first strikes were aiming for Saddam personally.

And it worked so well didn't it. Maybe, MAYBE if the US could simply kill the leader of the nation, MAYBE then it would be a wise policy if it was used VERY SPARINGLY. But that won't happen. We all know that eventually something would happen like the bombs hitting an orphange/cute puppy veterinary office. The backlash would be huge, because everybody would see America as using its military power to go around and kill who ever they like.

 

[DarthAmerica]

And it worked so well didn't it. Maybe, MAYBE if the US could simply kill the leader of the nation, MAYBE then it would be a wise policy if it was used VERY SPARINGLY. But that won't happen. We all know that eventually something would happen like the bombs hitting an orphange/cute puppy veterinary office. The backlash would be huge, because everybody would see America as using its military power to go around and kill who ever they like.

It worked very well. Its one of the reasons why I am alive today. Even though the strikes didnt kill Saddam. They forced him and his senior leadership into hiding which overly complicated his C4I allowing people like me to run amok in his rear area without having to fight well lead coordinated defenders. Following that we took over Iraq in record time and are now in control of the country. Targeting the political leadership facilitated that greatly.

 

[thegoldenhorde]

It worked very well. Its one of the reasons why I am alive today. Even though the strikes didnt kill Saddam. They forced him and his senior leadership into hiding which overly complicated his C4I allowing people like me to run amok in his rear area without having to fight well lead coordinated defenders. Following that we took over Iraq in record time and are now in control of the country. Targeting the political leadership facilitated that greatly.

You're changing your arguement. You were saying that an asasination can prevent war, but obviously you are now sayin that a war is still necessary to prevent war. I don't really have a problem with the use of an attack on a ruler to open a war though. I think its okay to attack a ruler if your about to invade his country. BU anything else smacks of vigilante-ism.

What exactly did you do in the war anyway? It sounds quite interesting. The only other Iraq veteran I know calculated the loads on C-130s. Not exactly action-packed.

 

[DarthAmerica]

What exactly did you do in the war anyway? It sounds quite interesting. The only other Iraq veteran I know calculated the loads on C-130s. Not exactly action-packed.

Oh your friend has a very under appreciated job. Guys like me wouldnt eat or get spare parts ect if it werent for him/her. And in this war, the battlefield doesnt have any clearly defined limits. Today we could be fighting them on the battlefield. Tomorrow it could be in the streets of Los Angeles. You just never know. Unless you go where they live and kill them before they do it to you. So never mind me or the C-130 loading Vet. If we dont get this right, YOU COULD BE FIGHTING in your home town someplace like they had to in Madrid, Bali London or like we had to in New York. And the longer we fight them, the more we lose even more precious freedoms here because we will have to use oppressive and extreme security procedures just to stay alive. So you have to go after them first, where they live and working your way through their chain of command from the top down. As far as what I did. I was in the Cav, we defended our country and I'd do it again.

 

[Cootamundra]

I would say this is a bad analogy to what I'm suggesting. Israel's sanction killings werent allowed to work AND they took place after the start of hostilities.

I wouldn't, I'd say good choice and good observation. Simple fact is that Israel's tactic does not seem to be helping to draw the conflict to a close. I suggest that a similar tactic employed by the US without first declaring war would have a similar result.

You see, this is whats going to make discussion of this topic difficult. Framing the debate with "The US kills off people it doesnt like" is a flase pretense. What I am suggesting is the killing of people who are actually threatening the national security interest of the United States. People like the current Iranian President or possibly the North Korean Leader(I dont know what title he uses on a day to day basis...lol). This is a step to be taken only after that person actually is a threat, after careful consideration by our military/political leadership and when the alternative is larger scale war.

OK however, my argument is that before taking out said threat 'war' was declared. This then means that ANY and all actions taken by said government to remove that threat to National Security would be legal and morally defendable.

If you think what I'm saying is not done today then I would encourage you to read about the way "Shock and Awe" started. The very first strikes were aiming for Saddam personally.

And as I've mentioned above I have no issues with the use of this tactic once war has started. At the end of the day this is all lawyer/politician hair splitting. But as a formal response to your original thread, my view is, assasinations should only be used as a tactic once war has been declared, not before. Call out the national security threat, warn them off, and then proceed if necessary.