Should we support assassination of military “targets”? I’m not talking killing for political reasons here (although if you want to make an argument that accepting assassination would lead to this on a “slippery slope”, good luck to you) but rather, the assassination of already accepted military targets.
I’m going to use Saddam as an example, here, mainly because it’s that situation that made me think of this. But this thread is really about assassination in all cases, so don’t just talk about this in terms of Saddam being a target.
Would it have been right for the U.S. (and U.K., and coalition forces) to either send a group or hire a third party to assassinate Saddam? (probably plus his supporters in the government/military). The argument I could best make against it is that it was more important not that he stayed, but instead, that the iraqi people were liberated, and while I would agree that’s right there does seem to be a lot of countries supported by the U.S. that do not have a democratically elected government, and are oppressed. So why not just kill the guy?
Bear in mind, I don’t want this to become an anti- or pro- war debate. If you want to make a point like “Assassination is a preferred option to war”, that’s fine, but not “Assassination is a preferred option to this unjust war started by Bush over oil” or “Assassination is a preferred option to this war which we were right to get involved in to aid the iraqi people”. Keep your posts in line with the main point, please, people
Killing a military target isn’t an assassination. The commander-in-chief is as fair game as the private (and IMO a much more morally acceptable one than a random drafted 19 yo).
Why not ? Snipers are largely assassins under a different name, and we use them all the time. For a perfect ( non-military ) example, look at police snipers. Killing a hostage taker before he can kill a hostage is a form of assassination; it’s also quite justifiable, even heroic.
If anything, assassination is morally superior to war; it kills fewer people, and is less likely to kill innocent bystanders by accident.
I agree, I think that in most cases assassination is a better solution than war (or in the case of the police sniper example, a shoot-out). So why is it that engaging in assassination would be looked on as “bad” if an adminstration supported it?
Because the leaders who would be targetted got together and said, “Hey, um, let’s all agree not to do this. Don’t you all agree it’ll be better if the people who die during a war are a bunch of nobody privates with no political connections?”
Because centuries of propaganda by the elite have convinced people it’s more “evil” than war, which is silly IMHO. Mind you, I’m not recommending assassination as a normal tool for international relations ( Sydney got the Olympics ! Kill the Mayor ! ), but war is one of the worst things there is. Much worse than assassination.
I vaguely remember a period in Europe called “The Age of Assassination”, where they were killing each other right and left. I don’t know if there was ever a formal agreement to stop, however. It’s unnecessary, really; a recognition of mutual self-interest is enough.
True. If you’re a leader of a country, it’s in your best interests* to not engage in assassination - it’s going to make others more likely to be involved in such activities themselves.
*Personal interests, not your countries’ interests.
Just FTR, the U.S. did assassinate Admiral Yamamoto (sp?) in WW2. We shot down a pair of planes carrying the Admiral, his family, and his staff. There was some debate about this action, IIRC, but it was approved and executed.
Yes. If Lower Slobbovians start assassinating the leaders of Upper Slobbovia, retaliatiatory assassination of the leaders of Lower Slobbovia can’t be long in coming.
It’s an early and selective form of Mutually Assured Destruction.
I’d settle for putting the leaders in dispute in a no-holds-barred steel cage deathmatch, if only because (a) it’s more openly honest about whose egos are at stake, and (b) the rest of us plebes get a good show in the process.
I think you’re forgetting something - wrestlers aren’t noted for their loose, concealing clothing. And world leaders, as a rule, are not the most fit people.
My friend and I were just talking about this. About how GW Bush might have excelled more because of his remarkable physical shape and sheer stubbornness. Of course no one would be able to defeat Tsar Vlad.
The purpose of warfare is not to kill the leader like some game of chess. It is to inflict your political will on another country or basically just take it over and make it part of your own (which is just another version of the first thing). If you kill the leadership, then there is no one to direct orders - specifically, to issue the command to surrender.
Assassination makes sense in the case of Yamamoto because he is commanding an army engaged in active warfare. It makes sense if you want to interrupt the chain of command so you can defeat the army. If you don’t follow up with a conventional attack, they’ll just put a new head on the snake.
