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)
There are a whole range of tactics to perform targeted killing, but you asked exactly the same question that Adam and I started with.Originally Posted by Bob's World
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
OK, good points. Let me re-phrase. IR discussions on strategy are general very poor, because folks have not held to the correct use of language.
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
Targeted killings: what are the alternatives?
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
Licence to Kill: When governments choose to assassinate
An article to accompany a BBC radio programme this evening, by Gordon Corera, which opens with:Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17353379Can state-sponsored assassination work as a strategy? And can it ever be justified? Governments don't admit to it, but Iranian nuclear scientists know it happens - and it's not easy to distinguish assassination from the US policy of "targeted killing".
It is a "broad brush", historical article and I'll link the radio podcast another time.
davidbfpo
UK view of BIJ
What is the UK view of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) ?
Its projects re: drones, etc. are here, Covert Drone War. It will take one some time to work through the material. E.g., The Bureau's major database and linked search engines of all known CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.
Regards
Mike
The BIJ
Mike,
You asked:I have looked at the website before and to a non-media person it appears to be well funded, with a private trust's donation, based at a London university, with a mix of student and professional journalists - the later from mainstream outlets. Their aim appears to be to provide stories to the media. The subject matter varies and rarely - thankfully - appears to be PR-led.What is the UK view of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) ?
London is awash with establishments where journalists and others mix, just like Washington DC.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks