I've been reading a book about the Israeli Mossad, their version of our CIA, titled Gideon's Spies. It tells the behind-the-scenes stories of some of the exploits of that fabled intelligence service, including many of the details about the numerous assassinations they've carried out. They're pretty brutal, for sure. Which begs the question, do the ends ever justify the means? Is assassination ever right / justified?
Let's be clear here: This isn't something that only the Israelis, with their backs to the sea, do to stay alive.
Our difference is we are rich enough and powerful enough that we can (usually ?) pay others to do our dirty work, enabling us to maintain "plausible deniability". Just like we don't torture terror suspects....but we do send them to Jordan, or Egypt, or Kazakhstan for a pleasant visit with those nice folks.
I remember my mom telling me "two wrongs don't make a right". True, but if one of those wrongs is so heinous, and the consequences will be so catastrophic, THEN would another "wrong" be justified?
Yes, Israel has whacked scientists from Syria and Pakistan and Iran (and probably elsewhere) who were actively working on perfecting nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, etc, weapons those countries have vowed to use to "wipe Israel off the map". And all indications were they weren't just idle threats. Honestly, I can grudgingly understand the Israeli's actions.
To use that same logic, if the US or the UK or France or Germany knew of a dastardly plot about to come to fruition, and if the country harboring the plotters couldn't be trusted to squash it, should we go in and "neutralize" the threat?
And where is that fine line between "yes", and "let's wait and see"? And if "let's wait and see" prevails, what happens if they're wrong and the result is another 9/11? Do those who erred on the side of restraint deserve responsibility for the catastrophe? Would you have the cojones to "wait and see"? And if you were too quick to say "go for it" (think GW Bush vs Iraq), what then?
Let's face it, making leadership decisions is a tough business! (That's why they all leave office with gray hair.)
To you, is this a black and white issue, or is there a big gray area? (Pun intended.)
S
To quote a certain German Sargent, "I know nothing!"
ReplyDeleteA huge grey area, not least because it depends on whose side you’re on. When is it acceptable to deliberately kill innocent civilians, including women and children? The IRA (and other groups, both Republican and Unionist) killed several thousand civilians during the Troubles, and of course to the individual assassins – the ones who planted the bombs or who pulled the trigger – the end obviously did justify the means, or they wouldn’t have done it. But there’s no subjective measure of these things. What is the end? What are the means? I think most people would accept protecting one’s own life, and the lives of one’s family, is a good enough reason to kill someone. But to kill for a political or religious ideal? That’s where it becomes more problematic. Currently Islamic State militants are killing people in order to achieve their end, and of course they regard the means as being justifiable. Do you? Probably not; I certainly don’t. It depends entirely on your standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it depends on whose side you're on. But to me, indiscriminate bombings are NEVER justified. That's terrorism. (Ummm...which opens up the can of worms about strategic bombing of civilians by both sides during WWII. Nothing is simple, is it?) I'm talking about specific, targeted assassination.
DeleteIsn't that what we (the good ol' USofA) calls "special ops", most of which we don't hear about?
ReplyDeleteYes, but those are mostly military targets. I'm talking about specific individuals such as atomic scientists and maybe high level defectors who pose a serious national security threat.
DeleteI can only imagine the types of things being done, supposedly for our benefit. It's a dangerous and confusing world and it makes my head to think of all the things our government is doing that I don't want to know about.
ReplyDelete"I was only obeying orders."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Simon - it's a huge gray area. I truly wouldn't be able to make such decisions, so I just wont run for any high political office (not that I would - or could - anyway).
ReplyDeleteAs others have suggested, I guess it depends. When you say 'we know', you reveal some of the issue. Are 'you' or 'we' omniscient? Do you know for absolute certainty that (blank) is going to happen? If so, (unlikely) than it's a big maybe, and to my mind probably no. We and others have done things based on our knowledge, and turned out to be entirely incorrect. This should be part of the equation; that is we should give strong likelihood that what we think about something is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAs you've pointed out, all sides of the coin have used the rational to justify their actions.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking there is an action that is only 'military', and that makes it different. History has shown that for every military individual targeted, multiple civilians go with them.