Middle East/North Africa #11 - now with added Theoretical Collapse

[Free Northman]

I really don't support getting involved in Syria in any capacity; but at the same I time I think its very important to show that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable. So I guess the US has to do something. Although, rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on missile and air strike (except against known chemical weapon depots), why can't we just have the CIA put out some heavy bounties and get involved in some assassinations of key regime personnel*?

I know that didn't work out so well with Castro, but, in general, it seems like we have a pretty good track record of things like that (albeit, usually against democratically elected regimes who we thought were a bit too 'red').

*Yeah, I know we have that law Carter signed; but we've ignored that before and there's plenty of ways around it.

That's what I don't get. With so much power, technology and expertise at their disposal, is it really that difficult to assassinate one guy? Whether it be Saddam, Ghadaffi, Mugabe, Kim Jong Whatshisname, Asad etc.

You could kill them all and remove the need to kill thousands of civilians as collateral damage. And if they replace them with new dictators, just assasinate them too, and keep going until they lose the will to oppose you anymore.

Rather that way than pounding their cities with thousands of tons of heavy ordinance.

[Horza]

Uh, do you guys really think

1) killing any of these guys is going to change policy and

2) that making assassination of world leaders a plank of foreign policy would have no repercussions of any kind, direct or otherwise?

[Free Northman]

Uh, do you guys really think

1) killing any of these guys is going to change policy and

2) that making assassination of world leaders a plank of foreign policy would have no repercussions of any kind, direct or otherwise?

No, it will definitely have repurcussions. Are the repurcussions worse than the cost in lives and resources of massive military campaigns such as we saw in Libya and Iraq? I think it is at least debatable.

Imagine if all world leaders that are fierce enemies of the US start dying off one by one in targeted strikes through some unknown technological means (x-rays from space borne weapon arrays, to use a fictitious example for arguments sake).

Imagine if that just happened to Saddam and Ghadaffi.

How many lives and how many billions of dollars would have been saved?

I actually agree with Tywin Lannister in this instance. "Explain why killing one man is worse than killing 10,000 on a battlefield."

I would not do it while he was my guest, however, but I would go out and announce that he is now officially on our target list and his number is up. And then carry out my threat. Until the message hits home.

[Fez]

Uh, do you guys really think

1) killing any of these guys is going to change policy and

2) that making assassination of world leaders a plank of foreign policy would have no repercussions of any kind, direct or otherwise?

1) Not really. But I don't think a sustained bombing campaign will either. And it does send the message that "using chemical weapons = you're gonna die"

2) How is it any worse than having bombing campaigns be a plank of foreign policy? Particularly when those bombings have specifically targeted world leaders (like when we hit Qaddafi's house in the '80s). It seems like an improvement to me, a recognition of the need to minimize civilian casualties. And we do have a bounty out on Mullah Omar, I don't see much difference between him and Assad except that Assad has more resources at his disposal.

[Free Northman]

1) Not really. But I don't think a sustained bombing campaign will either. And it does send the message that "using chemical weapons = you're gonna die"

2) How is it any worse than having bombing campaigns be a plank of foreign policy? Particularly when those bombings have specifically targeted world leaders (like when we hit Qaddafi's house in the '80s). It seems like an improvement to me, a recognition of the need to minimize civilian casualties. And we do have a bounty out on Mullah Omar, I don't see much difference between him and Assad except that Assad has more resources at his disposal.

How can they not have some flysized remote controlled nanobot yet that can fly into a hypothetical Asad's face and detonate, or a bunch of other high tech stuff we can't even imagine yet?

Why must you drop ten thousand tons of high explosives all across a country just to try and force it leadership to its knees, killing thousands of civilizians in the process? Why not rather just cut off the snake's head in a surgical assassination?

[stinkum]

The USA needs to pay reparations to the countries they keep blowing up and allow mass immigration from its peoples.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

2) How is it any worse than having bombing campaigns be a plank of foreign policy? Particularly when those bombings have specifically targeted world leaders (like when we hit Qaddafi's house in the '80s). It seems like an improvement to me, a recognition of the need to minimize civilian casualties.

And as I remember, the U.S. was accused of murdering his daughter in that raid, and the usual hand-wringers bitched about that as well.

And we do have a bounty out on Mullah Omar, I don't see much difference between him and Assad except that Assad has more resources at his disposal.

But despite that bounty being in existence for over a decade, we still haven't gotten the guy. It is generally much more difficult to off someone like that than is assumed. Assad is easier to locate in a general sense than Omar, but Assad still lives in a massive complex, and you can't know where he is within that complex at any given time. There are cars with tinted windows leaving from underground garages constantly, so even if you know that's where he generally lives, you can't know he's inside. And if you do actually see him, targeting, firing, missile travel time, etc. all take long enough that a glimpse isn't really enough. You have to know exactly where he is, and know for certain that he is going to remain in that exact place long enough for the missiles (because one is likely not enough) to get there.

All of that contains massive potential for missing, and the collateral damage of killing innocent people. And that's even assuming the U.S. wants to assume the responsibility for publicly assassinating a world leader, and then dealing with the consequences of the internal chaos that inevitably would follow.

The latter point is a major reason I don't want us to get involved. Because as soon as Assad would be gone, we'd be expected to help maintain "stability", and of course to send money to the poor Syrian people to help them rebuild. No freaking way as far as I'm concerned.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The USA wants to remain the pre-eminent world superpower and having the largest military, both of which do (no matter US public opinion) meant it does become the world's policeman. If it doesn't want to do that, fine, it doesn't have to. But if it wants to retain that position, it has to pay for it.

I'm not sure I get this point. We can have the world's preeminent military, and choose to use that military only when we see it as benefitting our national interests,not just because he rest of the world thinks something "should be done" and wants us to do it because they're unable. Those other nations might not like that, but I hardly think they have cause to complain given that they're not the ones paying the tax dollars to sustain that military.

Our obligations are limited to our alliances, and to our allies if attacked. That does not extend to every other foreign adventure those allies may think it is a good idea.

The USA needs to pay reparations to the countries they keep blowing up and allow mass immigration from its peoples.

Or, quit blowing them up and stop immigration from those nations.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Alternatively, the US could think of it as some small measure of repayment for its free riding on the back of the Royal Navy during the 19th century. :cool4:

Well, I do suppose it is not entirely inaccurate to say all those American sailors impressed into the Royal Navy got a "free ride" -- in some sense -- aboard those British ships.....

[Clueless Northman]

Thing is, you do this, then your own leaders are fair game as well. So, this means Obama, Cameron and many others are on the hit-list as well. That's the same reason why Western armies try to respect the Geneva Conventions instead of torturing or killing on the spot all enemy prisoners - it's a light guarantee that captured GI won't suffer cruel deaths if they're captured.

Besides, this works best when you have the surprise effect.

I actually was in favor of offing Gadaffi, but this should have been a very early surprise missile strike, when he was making some TV speech, at a point where his location was well-known, and before the official bombing campaign was launched - because as soon as it was announced, he went into hiding.

If foreign leaders know they can be killed, they'll be extremely cautious, and you can forget the easy bomb to get them - you'll need to hit tens of potential locations before hoping to get one.

Of course, this also relies on the dead wrong idea that the tinpot dictator is like some mad scientist, alone in his lunacy, with no popular backing, with no one else able to replace him.

This was far more effective in ancient times, when you had ruling monarchs with true power, or when you target the main military mastermind of the enemy (let's say, like killing off Frederick II the first month of the Seven Years War).

But nowadays, replacements can be found, and killing the leader won't mean everyone in the population will be glad and fine; you'll still have high risks of sectarian or political violence, civilian mayhem and major troubles for months or even years to come.

So, it's not that I'm totally opposed to the notion, but it has severe drawbacks and usually won't be as effective as its promoters seem to think.

[Horza]

No, it will definitely have repurcussions. Are the repurcussions worse than the cost in lives and resources of massive military campaigns such as we saw in Libya and Iraq? I think it is at least debatable.

Imagine if all world leaders that are fierce enemies of the US start dying off one by one in targeted strikes through some unknown technological means (x-rays from space borne weapon arrays, to use a fictitious example for arguments sake).

Imagine if that just happened to Saddam and Ghadaffi.

How many lives and how many billions of dollars would have been saved?

I actually agree with Tywin Lannister in this instance. "Explain why killing one man is worse than killing 10,000 on a battlefield."

I would not do it while he was my guest, however, but I would go out and announce that he is now officially on our target list and his number is up. And then carry out my threat. Until the message hits home.

So your contention that this is a workable policy depends on magic sci-fi death rays and what I'm going to call the Castro's Beard Theory of Obstinate Dictators.

Central to the CBTOD is the idea that America's problems with Obstaclistan, Thwartopia, Hostylvania and suchlike all spring from the defiant leadership of their charismatic strongman. Remove the man with particle disruptors, nanomunitions, deadly remote-piloted cobrasquitos and you've removed the problem.

What's missing from this picture?

Oh, just about everything, but let's keep it simple: tyrants, as megalomaniacal as they might be, ultimately aren't in power solely because of their immense charisma and visionary statesmanship. Come on, just apply those words to Bashar Assad.

Not working, is it?

These guys are in charge of countries because whatever their personal talents, their leadership works for enough powerful people and interests that other alternatives can't get a look in. They attend to the needs of their support bases and are looked after in return. The interests of their support bases are what keep them in chintzy furniture and tiger enclosures, and they cross those sources of power at their peril. The faces change, but the equations of power don't.

Which is why, if the US government's crack thermoclastic gluon cannon was to vaporise Assad tomorrow, with a live countdown on prime time and accompanying videofeed, nothing would fundamentally change. It would still be in the interest of the Alawites, Christians, Sunni elites and Druze of Syria to band together and fight the rebellion with everything at their disposal because the alternative in their minds is still sectarian cleansing. This could remain the case after the entire Assad senior line was done away with in similar fashion. Politics, family, national allegiance are all bigger than any single tinhorn.

And you aren't addressing the other side: if the US starts making it a policy to threaten antagonists with macabre death, why wouldn't that be an incentive for them to get you before you get them? There would be consequences to normalising this ghoulish policy and I see no reason why other nations couldn't start play this game. Maybe at present the US has a cobrasquito gap over any potential rival, but for how long? Whatever the costs of dealing with obstinate tyrants, are they really steeper than those of a world of routinised assassination of heads of state?

2) How is it any worse than having bombing campaigns be a plank of foreign policy? Particularly when those bombings have specifically targeted world leaders (like when we hit Qaddafi's house in the '80s). It seems like an improvement to me, a recognition of the need to minimize civilian casualties. And we do have a bounty out on Mullah Omar, I don't see much difference between him and Assad except that Assad has more resources at his disposal.

Quite often bombing campaigns aren't all that effective either. Especially 'punitive' strikes.

FLOW has dealt with the specific difficulties of killing paranoid dictators pretty well, but suffice it to say it's a lot more difficult than decades of TV and movies have lead the public to believe. Even with resources and time devoted, it's complex, horribly damaging if compromised and with a dubious payoff.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Thing is, you do this, then your own leaders are fair game as well. So, this means Obama, Cameron and many others are on the hit-list as well. That's the same reason why Western armies try to respect the Geneva Conventions instead of torturing or killing on the spot all enemy prisoners - it's a light guarantee that captured GI won't suffer cruel deaths if they're captured.

I agree on your overall point, but this particular rationale isn't persuasive to me. I don't think radicals have refrained from killing other world leaders because they're trying to play by the rules -- I think they'd certainly do it if they thought they could pull it off. As evidence, I'd point out that us trying to abide by those Conventions hasn't stopped them from openly violating them. And I think U.S. military power is a sufficient deterrent from any nation-states that would try to pull that off.

So, it's not that I'm totally opposed to the notion, but it has severe drawbacks and usually won't be as effective as its promoters seem to think.

Right. It is generally much more difficult to pull off than people assume, you have to consider the risk and blowback from collateral damage, and then you have to consider if the end result is going to be so much better than the status quo ante that it was worth the cost. I think going after Assad fails on all three counts.

[Fez]

But despite that bounty being in existence for over a decade, we still haven't gotten the guy. It is generally much more difficult to off someone like that than is assumed. Assad is easier to locate in a general sense than Omar, but Assad still lives in a massive complex, and you can't know where he is within that complex at any given time. There are cars with tinted windows leaving from underground garages constantly, so even if you know that's where he generally lives, you can't know he's inside. And if you do actually see him, targeting, firing, missile travel time, etc. all take long enough that a glimpse isn't really enough. You have to know exactly where he is, and know for certain that he is going to remain in that exact place long enough for the missiles (because one is likely not enough) to get there.

All of that contains massive potential for missing, and the collateral damage of killing innocent people. And that's even assuming the U.S. wants to assume the responsibility for publicly assassinating a world leader, and then dealing with the consequences of the internal chaos that inevitably would follow.

The latter point is a major reason I don't want us to get involved. Because as soon as Assad would be gone, we'd be expected to help maintain "stability", and of course to send money to the poor Syrian people to help them rebuild. No freaking way as far as I'm concerned.

All good points, although considering how expensive bombing campaigns are, if we diverted some of that to a new (presumably) division in the intelligence community's cloak and dagger section, they'd have some pretty massive resources at their disposal to figure this out.

Also I was thinking more along the lines of turning a bodyguard, a la Indira Gandhi; rather than a super-complicated missile or commando strike.

Thing is, you do this, then your own leaders are fair game as well. So, this means Obama, Cameron and many others are on the hit-list as well. That's the same reason why Western armies try to respect the Geneva Conventions instead of torturing or killing on the spot all enemy prisoners - it's a light guarantee that captured GI won't suffer cruel deaths if they're captured.

And that's why we already provide the secret service with an unreviewed budget. Seriously, they already get whatever they request and the exact amount is classified; this is for a reason.

Anyway, I'm not actively promoting let's go around killing all the world leaders we don't like. I'm just saying that if we're committed to military action already, maybe we should consider it instead; and, like I said, I really don't want to see US military involvement in Syria if possible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Quite often bombing campaigns aren't all that effective either. Especially 'punitive' strikes.

Agree completely. "Punitive" strikes generally are going to result in a lot more innocent deaths because by definition, you're really not going after the top guy, but only underlings who are more likely to be withinn the general population rather than more isolated in a central compound. I really can't remember any dictator ever stepping aside because of "punitive" strikes against their country. I mean, they really don't give a shit in most cases.

Second, to do those strikes effectively, you're going to need aircraft other than drones, and that's going to mean you have to get air superiority. In the case of Syria, they have a fairly sophisticated air defense net so you're going to have to take that out first. And that is going to involve a lot of bombing/strikes in more heavily populated areas, which is means a lot more collateral damage and civilian deaths. And you still might lose some planes.

And Third, to the extent people are saying "just take out the chemical weapons capability" that too is a lot easier said than done. Those munitions can be moved undetected from one location to another in the back of a truck just like any other bit of ammo. Undetected, and pretty much undetectable.

[Horza]

I agree on your overall point, but this particular rationale isn't persuasive to me. I don't think radicals have refrained from killing other world leaders because they're trying to play by the rules -- I think they'd certainly do it if they thought they could pull it off. As evidence, I'd point out that us trying to abide by those Conventions hasn't stopped them from openly violating them. And I think U.S. military power is a sufficient deterrent from any nation-states that would try to pull that off.

There are two scenarios here:

- the Fez/Free Northman 'An Assassination is Announced', where the assassinating state makes it clear that it's offing the other guy as a punitive measure, which I think would pretty likely start some kind of gruesome tit-for-tat,

- offing the other guy secretly, which some states might try if their leadership was particularly crazy or desperate, and get away with.

[Clueless Northman]

I agree on your overall point, but this particular rationale isn't persuasive to me. I don't think radicals have refrained from killing other world leaders because they're trying to play by the rules -- I think they'd certainly do it if they thought they could pull it off.

Radicals already do this, but they're radicals, not states or peoples.

If this becomes an official US policy, then radicals wouldn't be alone but would have the full backing of some moderately powerful and wealthy nations to go after the US President.

So, the question is if Obama wants to become a constant target, 24/24, to the point he won't even be able to get on the White House's lawn because it's still too exposed. And of course he could kiss goodbye to photo-ops and most outdoors activities. Basically, is he ready to go into hiding and living in secrecy, like Saddam during the war, because that's the only way to be sure?

Not to mention that if the US begins to routinely solve foreign problems by killing foreign leaders, the list of US allies will grow thin pretty fast, because eventually even Western democracies might fear (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter, people tend to be both nationalistic and paranoid) that one day, the US might opt to kill their own elected leader; on the other hand, the ranks of some unofficial anti-US coalition would grow pretty fast.

All in all, I'd say the President sense of self-preservation and wish for a moderate level of freedom would convince him not to go too far in the "enemy leader assassination" way, unless there's a major war going on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

All in all, I'd say the President sense of self-preservation and wish for a moderate level of freedom would convince him not to go too far in the "enemy leader assassination" way, unless there's a major war going on.

Ultimately, I agree with this point, so the specifics aren't all that important. So that means if we're not going to kill Assad, what do we do? And I think that's what the Administration is struggling with, because I truly think it is difficult to come up with an option that is constructive rather than just doing "something" because people expect us to do "something".

[Free Northman]

There are two scenarios here:

- the Fez/Free Northman 'An Assassination is Announced', where the assassinating state makes it clear that it's offing the other guy as a punitive measure, which I think would pretty likely start some kind of gruesome tit-for-tat,

- offing the other guy secretly, which some states might try if their leadership was particularly crazy or desperate, and get away with.

Lots of good points raised. There are certainly pros and cons to every option. I am not entirely convinced, however, that targeted assassinations aren't still a better option than all out bombing of a country.

I like the public announcement and countdown option better than the secret "let everyone think he got cancer naturally", option.

That would be real shock and awe. If you could pull it off successfully, though. And that depends on your true technological superiority. Can a bunker buster bomb really penetrate 10 levels underground? And is the guy really in that particular bunker?

If so, take him and the few hundred people in the bunker out, and maybe it saves thousands of others being killed in a protracted war.

Anyway, I understand it is usually not that clearcut. But I do think that if Ghadaffi and Saddam had been removed, the wars in Iraq and Lybia would have been largely avoided.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Anyway, I understand it is usually not that clearcut. But I do think that if Ghadaffi and Saddam had been removed, the wars in Iraq and Lybia would have been largely avoided.

You may recall that we tried to take Saddam out at the beginning of the war, and failed. It is much more difficult than people assume. Most of those guys managed to get and retain power because they are intelligent survivors who have outfought/outwit a lot of domestic opposition that would have liked nothing better than to kill them. And that's with opposition with lots of support within the country, common language, familiar ties, etc..

There is also a huge issue, at least from my perspective, as to the aftermath. What exactly happens if we do kill Assad? In my mind, the Pottery Barn rule applies, and I'm just really, really tired of that.

[Free Northman]

You may recall that we tried to take Saddam out at the beginning of the war, and failed. It is much more difficult than people assume. Most of those guys managed to get and retain power because they are intelligent survivors who have outfought/outwit a lot of domestic opposition that would have liked nothing better than to kill them. And that's with opposition with lots of support within the country, common language, familiar ties, etc..

There is also a huge issue, at least from my perspective, as to the aftermath. What exactly happens if we do kill Assad? In my mind, the Pottery Barn rule applies, and I'm just really, really tired of that.

I do recall it well. Those early quick strikes at his palace. I'm saying if that succeeded, the war may have been over very quickly.

Anyway, I'm just surprised that it is not a strategy that is considered and perfected with more enthusiasm, given the alternative of a protracted bombing campaign. I guess the technology just isn't there yet.