Re-Designing Warfare: Replacing All-Out War with State Sponsored Assassination

Which one is better for civilians: full-fledged Wars or State Sponsored Assassinations? This is one of those dilemmas, however realism begs this question since conflicts among humans will never end and therefore there's the need to design new ways for States to get rid of foes without involving civilians in the utter destruction that ensues an all-out war.

War

Definition

Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states, or between the armed forces of a nation and unlawful combatants.

Discussion

In a war there is a lot of destruction: while the destruction of military objectives is the goal, the obliteration of civil objects is undesirable (except when it comes to Terrorist Groups, that almost always break the International Law of War). And even though the Military Forces endeavour to spare the civilian population, we must admit that the impact Wars bear on Civilians, and civilian objects, is far greater than that on Military objectives.

When we stop to think a bit of what was said above, we need to begin a new debate: wars are necessary to bring about peace but, as individuals seeking for behavioural evolution (within the limitations of Human Nature), hasn't the time finally come to re-design warfare?

• In earlier times, wars were waged in open fields – as far as possible from civilian locations.
• Then, the Red Armies brought wars into the cities, near Civilian populations – the first steps of Urban Warfare. 
• Next, the Nazis fought a mix of Traditional and Urban Warfare. 
• Then, we witnessed the Guerrilla Wars – away from the big civilian areas (in Vietnam, in Africa and Latin America).
• And since 1979, we have been witnessing the crescendo of the Urban Warfare towards the apotheosis that we have seen in Syria – where total destruction of the country was seen, in utter violation of the International Customary Humanitarian Law. 
• What now?

Now, we should take the war to those who are truly liable for the misery of the People, for the decisions that lead to the destabilisation of countries for gain and greed (and again for the suffering of innocent civilians), for the depletion of resources (that prevent Human Development) and for gross negligence.

State Sponsored Assassination

Definition

State Sponsored Assassination, or Leadership Decapitation, is the State-ordered killing of a prominent person that can be carried out for political and/or military purposes.

Discussion

Sparing civilian populations is the main aim. But the objective, in putting forward this suggestion, is also to change the rules that allow both state and non-state actors to use displacement of civilians either as ammunition against X or Y country/region or as a test lab for weapons – generating thus unnecessary suffering to both the displaced and the hosting civilian populations.

Leadership decapitation is a necessary instrument to ensure that Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is upheld to the fullest “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” - any political leader who poses a threat to his country's citizens' right to live freely and in security (in its many shapes and forms), must be dealt with. Why drag millions of innocent people to misery for the decisions made by one individual and his/her cronies? 

The Head of a State (be it a President, a Prime Minister, a Governor, a King, a Prince, or even a Vice-Roy) can no longer think that his/her rights stand above the majority's rights and that his/her decisions are unimputable. The system in place now is so corrupt that politicians have lost their shame for good because, thus far, not only have they acted in absolute impunity but they also have been rewarded (with accolades, high positions at the UN, EU, IMF etc) for their inconsequential behaviour.

Who Gets to Decide on The Matter?

It is advisable the conception of a Special Unit - composed by selected elements of several Security Agencies (military and civilian information services) known for their sense of honour and ethics – charged with the task of analysing the degree of the politician's transgression, the level of sufferance inflicted upon domestic civilians, the consequences of the individual's decisions in neighbouring countries or in states where his country may have interests in (e.g. did he cause an unnecessary and devastating civil war in a distant nation for self-gain and that of his friends?) and the cost-benefit of decapitating that political leader (and his roots). After a thorough analysis, a decision must be made.

Won't this lead to a war between assassins? Yes, it will; but as long as it minimises the exposure of civilians to destruction and suffering, the show must go on.

Conclusion

The suggestion put forward in this piece does not collide with the Military Complex Industry, but it does invite the industry to take matters to a different level. We have observed that when humans sit in their comfort zone, they find it hard to change, however that resistance (that failure to quickly adjust) is the root of the present state of affairs. The counsel hereby given demands the creation of more Advanced High Precision Weapons – that get the job done without regular citizens 'realising' it.

Democracy should mean responsibility and accountability (to the people); therefore, society can no longer afford to accept politicians who affect negatively the lives of millions of people and, later on, get to be promoted to a life of peace and monetary comfort, in any given paradise.

(Image: Ninja[Ed] - Manzanedo)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]