You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
Whack-a-Mole as Policy in Washington and How It Failed, 1990-2015
2015-04-29
[HuffPoo] As the war on terror nears its 14th anniversary -- a war we seem to be losing, given jihadist advances in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen -- the U.S. sticks stolidly to its strategy of "high-value targeting," our preferred euphemism for assassination. Secretary of State John Kerry has proudly cited the elimination of "fifty percent" of the Islamic State's "top commanders" as a recent indication of progress. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself, "Caliph" of the Islamic State, was reportedly seriously wounded in a March airstrike and thereby removed from day-to-day control of the organization. In January, as the White House belatedly admitted, a strike targeting al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan also managed to kill an American, Warren Weinstein, and his fellow hostage, Giovanni Lo Porto.

More recently in Yemen, even as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took control of a key airport, an American drone strike killed Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, allegedly an important figure in the group's hierarchy. Meanwhile, the Saudi news channel al-Arabiya has featured a deck of cards bearing pictures of that country's principal enemies in Yemen in emulation of the infamous cards issued by the U.S. military prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an aid to targeting its leaders. (Saddam Hussein was the ace of spades.)

Whatever the euphemism -- the Israelis prefer to call it "focused prevention" -- assassination has clearly been Washington's favored strategy in the twenty-first century. Methods of implementation, including drones, cruise missiles, and Special Operations forces hunter-killer teams, may vary, but the core notion that the path to success lies in directly attacking and taking out your enemy's leadership has become deeply embedded. As then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it in 2010, "We believe that the use of intelligence-driven, precision-targeted operations against high-value insurgents and their networks is a key component" of U.S. strategy.
A 'policy' derided for many years by several within this forum who have first hand knowledge and have participated either directly or indirectly in ME theaters of operation.
Posted by:Besoeker

#4  Buffalo=Huffpo damn auto correct
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2015-04-29 20:25  

#3  Buffalo needs to enroll in Common Core math: 2015-1990 is not 14, per the text.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2015-04-29 20:24  

#2  Agreed. It's a tactic applicable to a cold war. Unfortunately and ironically, it was banned as a tactic by the USG during the last Cold War.
Posted by: Pappy   2015-04-29 13:25  

#1  The Israeli "forced prevention" comparison is apples to oranges, a non sequitur. Their's is a true situation of policing limited, internal borders, not a macro-level, global war on terror.

Attempting to impact or thwart the evil deeds of an ideology with a membership in the single digit billions with a program of 'High Value Target (HVT)' engagement is a fool's errand. The math really isn't in your favour. You simply cannot get there from here. Can the engagement of HVT's coupled or in tandem with other offensive, counterterrorism strategies be successful? Yes it most certainly can. Hobbling the military and handing the HVT mission off to an intelligence agency is however, a recipe for failure.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-04-29 12:17  

00:00