The Necessity of Targeted Killing
by E. Walker Nordan Jr.
Download the Full Article: The Best Defense is a Good Offense
Over the last four decades, terrorism has grown to be recognized as not only the popular, but openly-accepted method among Islamic extremist factions in making a political statement. Through the practice of airline hijackings and bombings through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, to the astonishing blow to the United States on September 11th, 2001, radical Islamists have ultimately been successful in striking fear into the hearts and minds of people world-wide, innocents and combatants alike. Though most democratic nations of today have the standard policy of not accepting, sponsoring, or even negotiating with terrorists; very few have a policy of eradicating them. Israel, however, has maintained a practice of openly engaging terrorists through "targeted killings". Israel has raised a great deal of controversy in the international community as to whether or not targeted killing is an acceptable form of warfare, and more specifically, whether or not targeted killing is identical to "assassination".
I shall assert that targeted killing is distinctly different from assassination and fits within the guidelines of international law -- though some changes should be made; additionally, with the changing face of the battlefields of today, I shall argue that targeted killing should be supported by the international community and embraced by the United States as not only an acceptable form of warfare, but the form of warfare against terrorism for the future.
Download the Full Article: The Best Defense is a Good Offense
Major E. Walker Nordan is an active duty Psychological Operations officer that has served in the USASOC community for over eight years, with experiences in combat in Iraq serving at the Joint Task Force level and in leading a Military Information Support Team for Ambassador Crocker in support of the Department of State and USSOCOM.
About the Author(s)
Comments
I agree with the author on many points. The practice of targeted killing of terrorist leaders generates very real and tangible benefits including a reduction in attacks on US interests/forces and an erosion of the organizations overall capability.
One could argue are legitimate military objectives against what is essentially a sworn enemy. The fact that they are non-state actors has no bearing on thier legitimacy as targets.
That being said the use of targeted killings needs to be regulated through the use of a systematic targeting process that takes into account military value vs. potential civil/political backlash.
I think it is a mistake to ignore the significance of the Geneva Conventions and their use as a tool of modern warfare. It is a grim business even following the rules.
When people follow those rules, they are lawful combatants. When they do not follow them, and still engage in combat, they act as unlawful combatants. Terrorists break those rules in multiple ways when they participate in terrorist acts.
It's not just a matter of uniforms. In fact, while uniforms are useful for identification, it's doctrine and rules that make lawful combatants in a war. Conduct towards the enemy is hugely important. This does not mean that people who are not in the act of committing a terrorist act are somehow protected.
Unfortunately, we are not paying enough attention to the Geneva protocols for dealing with these problems. They are not really new in that during WWII, Korea, etc. armed forces encountered serious problems with situations that gave rise to these exact types of dilemma.
The fact is there are very well bounded criteria for how people should act in armed conflicts. If they do not act that way, they need to be treated as unlawful combatants. They fall into that pit when they do things like kill unarmed medical service people. Or, throw acid in the faces of children. Or blow up civilians who are uninvolved in war production activities.
The fallacy of panic oriented urgency is that somehow temporal requirements mean that the framework for action that's being applied is broken in some way. The implication being that somehow temporally constrained decisions will require exemption is false though.
Just because there's a box doesn't mean the only tool in it is a hammer. It's not about how anal their leadership is about their forces dress as it is their conduct. The rules reflect that stuff, and we keep making this harder than it needs to be.