Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
Strangely enough, the United States of America has not engaged in political assasination for at least 33 years.
Thinking of the last 5 wars America has been a part of would it not be worth it to ask ourselves why not engage in political assasination?
With all of the information gathering capabilities at the disposal of the different U.S. intelligence agencies and all the money (not to mention the
black budgets off the books) they spend spying on "terrorists", different governments around the world and lets not forget the American people, one
would think the capabilities of such agencies could have a very large role in the extermination of Americas enemies.
Yet, it seems to me the general consensus is that they play only an advanced scouting role for intel on future combat situations. Of all the unknown
positions that American agents undoubtedly play in world affairs the general public is only vaugely aware of the military reconnaisance roles that
affect the battle field directly. I say that doesnt even scratch the surface of their true operational capabilities.
In consideration of the hundreds of thousands of American military personnel that are put in danger, and the hundreds of billions of dollars that are
spent in fighting such wars as Vietnam, Iraq and Afhganistan would it not be more efficient and cost effective to consider such alternatives as lethal
Of course their is the argument chop the head off Medusa two more take its place. Well, OK. Thats fine, but intelligence is not limited to finding
and tracking one person. I can easily visualize a scenario where multiple heads of state could be taken out with one swift well coordinated
Lets take Iraq for example. Assuming the intelligence is correct and there are no alterior motives for removing Iraqi leadership by the government of
America. Here we have a leader whom is alleged to be in control of weapons of mass destruction. We have intelligence that knows where it is, how
they have produced such weapons, and that they intend to use them at some point for future terrorist activities.
OK, now, can someone please explain to me why it is that same intelligence can not be used to coordinate an attack from the interior of Iraq with
special forces on multiple targets in an overwhelming fashion? Lets consider a few of the plausible outcomes of such an action.
Twelve targets are identified. 8 high ranking generals and leaders including Saddam Husein, 4 locations where known weapons are either in production
or are in storage.
Politically we are issuing no threats. We are engaged with negotiations with the U.N. and Iraq directly providing a diversion for what is to come.
Let there be no indication an attack is about to take place.
All at once special forces in coordination with cia operatives with aerial capabilities mercilessly and swiftly eliminate each known target all at the
same time giving the enemy no time for any coordinated defensive measures. No costly, massive invasion by American forces. No massive bombing
campaigns. No large collateral damage.
Covertly a warning can be delivered to the remaining leadership of Iraq that any sort of effort in retaliation is ill advised and will be meet with
overwhelming force. Any attempt to rebuild any long range weaponry or weapons of mass destruction will result in the same actions except on larger
The battle then begins to re-create the government of Iraq, by the remaining majority of the still intact government, no American assistance. No
puppet government. The UN can come in and do their job, with little American participation as possible. Game over for Iraqs criminal leadership.
Very, very few innocent casualties sustained, and infrastructure of Iraq still in working capacity. Which will also mean no threat from Al Quaeda or
Iran aiding and funding terrorist actions. Therefore no terrorist stronghold anywhere in Iraq, just the way it has been since its inception.
Same thing, except failure of eliminating all targets. Some leaders survive, some American forces captured. Weapons moved to new location. But,
think of the mindset now instilled in the remaining leadership of Iraq. 5 of the major leadersip roles have just been eliminated with comparative
ease. Will those next 5 who take the place decide to continue down that same path as the last? I highly doubt it. And if they do, we hunt them, we
target them and we take them out, the same way we got most of them the first time.
Would anyone argue that the current 7 year war is better than either scenario above?
When it comes to intelligence and the powers the different agencies have been given, I don't see why any of this is out of the range of possibility.
Especially considering the massive budgets, the enormous technological capabilites at their fingertips and the fact they are the smartest and most
advanced trained people all across the world. Not to mention we are not the inventors of such practices such as spying and certainly not the only
ones currently practicing it. So, in conjunction with other foreign agencies I believe it can be done, and considering the alternatives (war) I
believe these are the most logical arguments against the traditional wars America has been engaged in for the last 60 years.
If America is really on the righteous side like the goverment has been proclaiming why not take advantage of these scenarios first? Why outlaw the
very thing that can save lives and money? It seems to me the most humanitarian and logical way of dealing with any sort of threat.
This situation could be attributed to scenarios all across the world. From N. Korea to the Taliban. All the same, no war needed to be waged, just
the covert actions of the few would be more of a deterent and statement than any large army invasion.
The only way this is some outladish fantasy is if
the general perception of the capabilities of our intelligence falls very short of what they
actually are. I just don't see that to be the case. So I guess the question here is: Is the CIA a week three legged dog? If not, why havn't
these scenarios played out in real life? Specifically with Iraq (since they were considered such a threat)? Why not in Vietnam? And why not in
Unless of course American government have utterly and completely lied through their teeth for the last 60 years about every war we have been engaged
[edit on 15-7-2009 by open_eyeballs]