This may do the trick ... should the president have the authority to order the assassination of foreign nationals he deems "a clear and present danger?" Given your disapproval of the Iraq war, even it's invasion, would you now swap the entire war with the simple and clean "removal" of Saddam and the Ba'ath leadership as a preferable route to what we have now with what, 3,000 plus American dead? Is the overt assassination- meaning we publicly announce our desire and goal to remove by any means necessary a given despot - acceptable? Be careful when you answer, under Clinton "regime change" in Iraq was stated US policy and a strategic cruise missile at the right "down with America" rally would have done just that. Also, if you feel the employment of snipers are acceptable only with an official proclamation of war, remember, we do not have that as of now in Iraq, only congressional approval for the president to use force.
I argue that assassination, covert or otherwise - given there is a "presidential finding", and on order of the president alone, is an acceptable form of warfare, at least and especially in the age of terror. We are admittedly and openly in a "war on terror." It is our publicly stated goal to "kill or capture" terrorists, and given that Ahmadadeajad is the biggest terrorist in the world right now (via money/ability) then removing that threat via a missile or a Seal's sniper rifle is perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of the president in my view.
If it is okay for Truman to instantly kill over 200,000 men women and children in order to end a war and save American GI's (and I argue that was a just move) then surely any president that finds himself fighting global terrorism, which I argue is a defacto state of war, has the right to kill one or two, or a group of leaders in order to save the lives (via a traditional invasion) of American GI's. After all, isn't that what Truman did - avoid a mainland invasion of Japan? What were the numbers on the mock-up we saw at the D-Day Museum? An estimated 700,000 dead? So he killed 200,000 to save 700,000 - surely any modern president would be justified in killing one leader in order to save 3000 American lives.
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While this is (certainly) a meat and potatoes post... you have about a baker's dozen points in this post. I will try and address them as I read them.
1) Political assassination as a tool of diplomatic strategy is as heinous a crime as I can imagine a leader committing. We accuse and prosecute Saddam Hussien for the very same act (against Bush Sr.), but would consider the same tactic ourselves? Would Russia be justified for having acted in "her best interests" if it had been shown that the grenade-throwing moron in Tbilisi back in '05 had been working for Putin? Please... this isn't a long walk.
YOU might be happy with leaving that kind of control in the hands of one man (PotUS), but I am not. How comfortable would you be with the fact that if Bush had the power to do that, then the next PotUS would too... and that might very well be Hillary, or Kerry, or maybe even someone worse. Is that okay with you?
2) Clinton did continue the policy of "regime change" that Bush Sr. instituted, but it was a policy of support for elements WITIN Iraq to remove Saddam, not US Navy sniper teams or Air Force cruise missles. Thus, this point is mute... unless you want to go back to debating the ethics of 75% of Reagan's foreign policy, too.
3) It was ALWAYS the stated goal of the Coalition to remove Saddam from power by any means needed... period. We weren't selectively destroying every single governmental palace and bunker in Baghdad just to scare the guy into the open... we intended him dead, and anyone there with him, too.
Is this assassination? I don't think so. As the undisputed leader of all things military in Iraq, Saddam was a legitimate military target for Coalition forces.
American Heritage Dictionary defines "assassination" as the SECRET MURDER of a prominent person for political reasons. Thus, publicly announcing the fact that the death of said "prominent person" is the stated goal of our Armed Forces, I'd say it is no longer "assassination"... it is a legitimate military action against a stated target.
4) I'm shocked at your comparison of Truman's determination to drop the bomb with political assassination. By Aug of '45, the US had lost nearly 210,000 troops in the PTO, and the fact that so many civilians would be killed was mitigated (if that is possible) by the fact that Japan had targeted and killed 20 times that many in China alone... the total number STILL hasn't been tallied, but must surely exceed 20 million civilian deaths in just short of ten years of war.
We WARNED the Imperial command that the bomb was coming... and again before Nagasaki... so it certainly wasn't a secret after that. They were given the chance to surrender, and chose to fight on, risking the lives of more than 500,000 civilians (and 120,000 MILITARY and INDUSTRIAL casualties... these were important targets in themselves).
Finally, your last question is the most ludicrous of all. If the Army-Navy-Marines can save a battalion or two of troops by sniping a military-political leader in open combat (say Iraq or Afghanistan), than I'd say "go for it".
But if you are suggesting that a man (ANY man OR woman) elected in this country, or any other, has the right and authority to commit sanctioned murder to further the interests of the US (or any other country), then you are approving of all the attempts ever made on a US leader by a foreign power as a legitimate strategy and action of diplomacy.
A sad day, in my opinion...
T
This reminds me of a BBC history show about the death of Yamamoto in the South Pacific in 1943. The producers identified it as an assassination, when if Yamamoto wasn't a legit military target, who the hell was? It's like saying Zarqawi (sp?) was an assassination, or Saddam's boys were assassinated. All were military targets who could have surrendered.
Anyway...
Post a Comment