Apparently, many
Americans believe that wars are and should be fought along certain rules of
chivalry. What a shock it has been to find the U.S. military capable of a dastardly attack on an
individual who repeatedly had planned operations that killed and maimed American
civilian and uniformed personnel along with many others. The fact that this
person held a high rank in his own country's elite force seems to be expected
to give him protected status. The entire concept is absurd, and it certainly
was not the reason why two previous presidential administrations chose not to close
down the activities of this dangerous and unscrupulous killer.
Then there is the
argument that this man was considered such a high official that killing him
would be considered a war crime. This too would be a fanciful notion. Without a
doubt past historical figures of dastardly repute were always deemed legitimate
targets. The list would go on at great length. To accept the concept of “too
high ranking to kill” is a direct insult to all who have been merely lowly
enlisted men. And that doesn't even consider the purposeful annihilation of
generations of civilians as ancillary casualties.
Another specious
argument is the one that suggests a declaration of war must be in hand or else
the act of killing a high-ranking terrorist organizer, trainer and planner may
be considered an illegal action. In point of fact, attaining high office in an
undeclared war, or more accurately characterized as a large-scale assassination
program does not protect anyone or any group from counter action. After two
World Wars and many other “side shows” of lesser size, such as Vietnam and
Korean wars, there is just no place for convenient innocence and lack of
accountability. As the old British saying goes: “It's just not cricket, old
boy.”
An additional point
is that today to inhibit what are now called “proxy wars” and the guidance and
support of same, democratic nations such as the United States simply have to do
whatever they can and hope for the best. This may seem to be lacking in legal
form, but it is reality. Frankly, it's a guide that General George Washington
followed. The history books will bear this out. America's revolutionary war was
not fought following Marquis of Queensbury rules. The ragtag assemblage of Patriots
didn't even know what the rules were. The British Crown followed the rules, but
only when convenient – and that was the reason for the war in the first place.
Ultimately,
politics – American and European - were the only real aims in condemning the
militarily perfect destruction of an unsuspecting perpetrator of horrendous
acts against humanity. The funny thing is that the Persians have known about
that sort of thing for centuries. The Hollywoodesque crowd scenes honoring the
death of Qasem Soleimani are straight out of medieval times – and just as
politically effective. In fact, the political impact in the Western world would
have made Cyrus The Great blush with pride.
In the end, the
Iranians felt the weight of Moscow and Beijing counselling them to follow a
careful and limited military counteraction. They too have a strong interest in
encouraging Tehran to restrict the Ayatollah’s reaction to the American action.
These are complicated times and one man's death cannot and should not be used
as a tool of domestic power?
That's the real
world!
Comments
Post a Comment