Van, I absolutely agree--when I posted it I was torn between the "trigger-puller" and "Middle East" forums, but in the end there's enough inter-(intel) service boundary problems, poor local information, and lack of assessment on longer-term consequences in this story that it seemed to go as well here as anywhere else.Originally Posted by Van
On top of that, I've grown dependant on Ted to move my posts when they're not in the best category
Every time I see a pundit talking about the advisability of "taking out" someone, I cringe.
Some years ago, my father, an ex intelligence officer, military historian, and no stranger to the murky world of peacetime intelligence, researched and studied the 15 or so assassination attempts on Hitler, including traveling to Germany to interview surviving members of one plot.
The operations ranged from "Lone Wolf" single person amateur operations to highly planned multi person military operations. His conclusion was that Hitlers survival demonstrated the very high degree of difficulty of conducting a successful operation against anyone who takes even the most rudimentary physical and information precautions - and has a little luck.
When asked, during a seminar on the subject if he was aware if anyone had conducted a successful operation against a major target he simply said "Not Yet".
The Israelis have had significant success in assassinating significant Palestinian political-military figures. However, this is often bedeviled by the law of unintended consequences, as the Jerusalem Post piece that I started the thread off with suggests.
A case in point: While the assassination of Fateh #2 (and Western Sector commander, effectively PLO Defence Minister) Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) in Tunis in 1988 was regarded at the time as a major operational success, I'm sure they now wish he had been alive 1994-present, given his relatively dovish political views and his probable contribution to a more professional and effective Palestinian Authority security service. Abu Jihad's assassination also did nothing to stop the intifada then underway (although there were some other retaliatory and deterrent goals on the Israeli side that may have been better attained).
Yes, a.k.a. Chaos theory, Complexity theory, Fog of War, or Friction... But what real makes me cringe (and reach for the soapbox to stand on) is that most of these consquences are fairly forseable. Example: The (thankfully failed) C.I.A. efforts to kill Fidel Castro in the '60s - did they really want Raul Castro (as he was then, he seems to have mellowed a bit) running the show in Cuba? Did they assess the implications of a compromised operation? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no' to both, but there is a serious issue with the degree of thought applied to the problem.law of unintended consequences
O.K. I'll move away from the soapbox.
On a more pragmatic note; the assassination of Yamamoto represents a near ideal case. A clean hit with strategicly trivial direct collateral damage, and little if any long term negative impact to U.S. interests... Unless you count the belief that we can repeat this miracle.
JFK? Lincoln? Trotsky? Sadat? Rabin?
The entire article: If siding with us is a major success then they must be major targets for those who oppose us
Last edited by Rank amateur; 09-27-2007 at 02:04 AM.
I agree with Van that this thread certainly doesn't belong in the "Intelligence" forum, but Political Assassination really doesn't fit the tactical intent of the "Trigger-Puller" forum either.....and the scope of the subject matter - and potentially the discussion - goes well beyond the "Middle East". So, here we are in the "Global Issues and Threats" forum - not the perfect fit, perhaps, but more appropriate than any of the others, I think. Any member can feel free to state otherwise, if you really feel it should go elsewhere.
Rex, at this point I'll just stay along the lines of our original post and link a couple of articles for consideration. First is this Sep 02 paper in support of Israeli targeted killings from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies:
Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing
...and here's an interesting Jan 05 perspective from the Bank of Israel Research Department:Israel has openly pursued a policy of targeted killing since the inception of the second intifada in September 2000. The Israelis have identified, located and then killed alleged Palestinian terrorists with helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft, tanks, car bombs, booby traps and bullets. Dozens of Palestinians have been killed, prompting international condemnation, domestic soul searching and bloody retaliation. Given its controversial nature and obvious costs, it is worth considering whether this policy is worth pursuing. Why has Israel embarked on a policy of targeted killings? Has the policy been effective in reducing Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians? Are targeted killings permitted by Israeli and international law? Is it moral? Most important, is the policy of targeted killing in the Israeli national interest?
The answers to these questions are of critical importance. For Israel, it is necessary to know whether its policy of targeted killings is pragmatically and ethically justified. If it is, it makes sense for Israel to continue or even expand upon this approach. If there are serious shortcomings, they need to be highlighted so that the policy can be modified or discarded. For countries other than Israel, and especially the United States, assessing the worth of targeted killings is hardly less significant. Ever since September 11th, much of the world, with the United States in the lead, has sought ways to counter terrorism. If the Israelis have embarked upon a successful approach, it makes sense to emulate them. If Israeli policy is fundamentally flawed, however, better to understand that now, especially when voices demanding that terrorists be hunted down and killed have grown so loud. Either way, learning from the Israeli experience is central to those seeking to combat the threat from terrorism.
Targeted Killings: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Counterterrorism Policy
Finally a paper from a US point of view:Targeted killing (henceforth assassination) of members of Palestinian terrorist organizations was a major element in Israel’s counterterrorism effort during the Palestinian uprising which started in 2000. We evaluate the effectiveness of this policy indirectly by examining Israeli stock market reactions to assassinations. Our approach relies on the assumption that the market should react positively to news of effective counterterrorism measures but negatively to news of counterproductive ones. The main result of the analysis is that the market reacts strongly to assassinations of senior members in Palestinian terrorist organizations: it declines following attempts to assassinate political leaders but rises following attempts to assassinate military ones.....
Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror
This monograph examines the prohibition on assassination embodied within Executive Order 12333 and its effect on a U.S. policy of targeted killing of transnational terrorist leadership. Next this monograph will examine the numerous interpretations of applicable international law regarding terrorism and the states response. This examination will contrast the law enforcement model proposed by adherents of international humanitarian law, with international humanitarian law and the law of war model advocated by those who see the current “war on terror’ as an armed conflict between states and trans-national terrorists.
Given the level of secrecy and lack of transparency involved in this policy and its implementation, how can we judge the moral and legal implications of the Bush administration’s policy of ‘targeted killing’ of al-Qaeda members or other suspected terrorists. Is this policy of ‘targeted killing’ morally justifiable and legal under both US domestic and international law? Can the United States maintain international legitimacy while implementing a policy of targeted killing of suspected trans-national terrorists? This monograph examines Executive Order 12333, International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law to determine the legality of a policy of targeted killing.
"Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror
Quote:
This monograph examines the prohibition on assassination embodied within Executive Order 12333 and its effect on a U.S. policy of targeted killing of transnational terrorist leadership. Next this monograph will examine the numerous interpretations of applicable international law regarding terrorism and the states response. This examination will contrast the law enforcement model proposed by adherents of international humanitarian law, with international humanitarian law and the law of war model advocated by those who see the current “war on terror’ as an armed conflict between states and trans-national terrorists.
Given the level of secrecy and lack of transparency involved in this policy and its implementation, how can we judge the moral and legal implications of the Bush administration’s policy of ‘targeted killing’ of al-Qaeda members or other suspected terrorists. Is this policy of ‘targeted killing’ morally justifiable and legal under both US domestic and international law? Can the United States maintain international legitimacy while implementing a policy of targeted killing of suspected trans-national terrorists? This monograph examines Executive Order 12333, International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law to determine the legality of a policy of targeted killing."
I always cringe a bit when international humanitarian law is invoked since it can stand in opposition to the US Constitution, IMO and it has strong underpinnings of Socialism. Some might say Socialism defines it.
I would suggest that the US can't maintain international legitimacy without whacking trans-national terrorists who fight as civlians, respect no established law but their own, heed no borders and have never heard of the Geneva conventions, a true scourge and blight they are. I first became aware of international legitimacy when I saw a clip of Nixon's car being stoned and pelted down in S. America so many years ago. This tripe floats to the surface with each succeeding Administration though today it has strong allies with the fashion and food police.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks