So let me break this down. Is "targeted killing"
a.) A policy = Political end state.
b.) A strategy = the use of force for political objectives.
c.) A tactic = means of fighting
Clearly, it's not a policy and it's not a tactic.
So let me break this down. Is "targeted killing"
a.) A policy = Political end state.
b.) A strategy = the use of force for political objectives.
c.) A tactic = means of fighting
Clearly, it's not a policy and it's not a tactic.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
"a" and "c" - by your fiat, we really have nothing to discuss or "break down", do we.
Hint: "killing" is a present participle, which can have meanings (pl.) as part of a noun phrase and as part of a verbal phrase.
Bonne Chance
Mike
Seems to me it can be the policy of a nation to use or not to use targeted killing as you said -- that makes it a noun phrase (I made that up...).
It can be a strategy followed by a nation to achieve specific results or actions / counteractions that will possibly lead to certain results.
That it can be a tactic arrive at a strategic goal or simply to achieve tactical advantage.
So I don't see how you can discount a. and c.
We are indeed separated by a common language...
the following three phrases:
"policy of targeted killing" - 74,900 hits
"strategy of targeted killing" - 45 hits
"tactic of targeted killing" - 68 hits
My personal two cents worth (for what it is worth) is that "targeted killing" (which ain't new) is a different enough form of warfare to have its own "grammer"; and that, moreover, it cuts across the DIME instruments of power (and whatever more letters you want to add) horizontally and runs vertically down from the highest national command authority to the guy or gal who pulls the trigger or pushes the button.
I don't exclude the use of the two lesser phrases (strategy and tactics). For example, the decision making targeting process does have its own features, as illustrated by Amos N. Guiora, License to Kill, 13 Jul 2009, Foreign Policy (another user of the term "policy": "Israel instituted its targeted killing policy in large part in response to Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks"):
Not all of its cases have a "Committee X" (or Barak playing a brunette followed by a strawberry blond); Guiora's example was Gaza where the area commander made the decision in individual cases at that time.When asked by a particular commander to authorize a targeted killing, I would ask the following factual questions:
»Who is the source?
»How reliable is the source?
»How timely is the information?
»What is the relationship between the source and the potential target?
»How precise is the information? (I was once told, for example, "he is wearing a blue shirt and blue jeans," but it was nighttime and the commander had night-vision equipment)
»When was the last time the unit conducted a nighttime ambush?
»How confident was the commander in his unit's capabilities?
»Did the commander receive the intelligence directly from the intelligence community and had he discussed the issue with a case officer?
Cheers
Mike
PS: Here is an update (mostly on Israeli and US practices - they are somewhat different) from earlier this year, Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann,Law and Policy of Targeted Killing (Harvard National Security Journal; posted on Jun 27, 2010).
Last edited by jmm99; 12-12-2010 at 07:43 AM. Reason: add link
Killing cannot be a "policy." It's like saying "bombing is a policy." Killing and or bombing are parts of a strategy. To be doable they have to be realisable in tactics.
IR uses a lot of and poorly informed language. It's not rigourous, and highly pseudo-academic.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Hmm. Seems to me that targeted killing is a tactic. One that should be implemented within the bounds of some policy to achieve some end. If it is by a sniper against some tactical target on the battlefield, it is a tactical end. If it is by design to take out some senior or critical individual for a strategic effect, then it is strategic.
As a tactic, like counterterrorism or terrorism, it is not warfare per se, but rather may be employed in war or peace IAW a nation's policies.
Time, manner, place all contribute to any assessment of some specific killing if one is feeling compelled to place it in some specific bin.
I would recommend that the U.S. adopt a policy of targeted killings of specific individuals that they have publicly "tried" in absentia and found guilty of a capital offense. This would build my standing target list, then, like in all targeting, I would establish clear criteria for on call targets, or targets of opportunity that meet the criteria, but time urgency demands immediate engagemnt.
In conjunction with this I would drop the entire "war" label from our actions to defeat terrorism and also drop the current legal tool of naming organizations in total as "terrorist." Wars, of course, are messy and create tremendous strategic risk for major nations. As to the terrorist labeling of organizations, it simply ties our hands in how we deal with these groups, preventing many more reasonable approaches to bring them in from the cold and incorporate into effective solutions.
Last edited by Bob's World; 12-12-2010 at 12:46 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I'm not so sure I agree--typically IR folks use terms that are understood quite clearly by other IR folks, and where there are multiple meanings ("balance of power" for example) they're discussed and dissected at length.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "policy" is:
a : a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions
b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body
The term "policy" can thus subsume goals ("our policy is a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"), strategy ("our policy has been to promote direct talks"), or well-established or habitual official actions ("our policy is not to allow searches of diplomatic vehicles at checkpoints"). Most IR folks (and most policy folks) would understand it as potentially meaning all those things.
A "political end state" sounds more like a goal, or possibly an interest.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
nearly missed this comment piece on the KoW blog:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2011/01/raf...-alternatives/
A curious link at the end, raising a point I'd not considered before - court judgements by the 'X' Supreme Court. The comments are a reasonable read too.
davidbfpo
Bookmarks