Posted on 02/15/2007 10:39:36 AM PST by Hadean
Intentionally or not, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds seems to have written one of those posts that has everyone buzzing. Responding to reports that Iran is providing weapons used to attack Americans in Iraq, Reynolds argued:
This has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don’t understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response.
We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs’ expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians’ toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell, we’ve done nothing along these lines….
To be clear, I think it’s perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries — like Iran — that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses. We may wind up doing so via airstrikes, but it would be better to do it in a more selective manner.
I’m loath to put words on his page, but Reynolds apparently believes American assassins should infiltrate Iran to kill unnamed Iranian religious leaders and civilian scientists. I’ll assume Reynolds would prefer to wait for some kind of evidence to point to actual wrongdoing before we start sending hit men into Tehran, but it’s a little unclear.
What’s more, Reynolds’ position has been widely embraced by several other high-profile conservative bloggers. John Hawkins, for example, is convinced that Iran “is a threat to the United States” because it is “targeting our soldiers in Iraq,” which makes critics of Reynolds idea “silly.” Hawkins explained, “Certainly our prohibition on assassinations isn’t going to stop any of our enemies from trying to assassinate Americans if they can get away with it. Only the fear of getting caught and of our retaliation will do that.”
So much for the moral high-ground.
From where I sit, there are two ways of looking at this.
First, as Glenn Greenwald noted, is the legal perspective.
Consistent with American tradition, international treaties, with virtual unanimity, deplore extra-judicial assassinations as the tools of savages and barbarians.
And what is most striking is that these anti-assassination prohibitions apply (a) to wartime and (b) even to foreign leaders of nations who are at war. But here, Reynolds is actually advocating that we murder scientists and religious figures who are “radical,” whatever that might happen to mean in the unchecked mind of George Bush.
If we are to be a country that now sends death squads into nations with whom we are not at war to slaughter civilians — scientists and religious figures — what don’t we do?
Second, and just as importantly, Kevin Drum explains perfectly what Reynolds is, in practice, advocating.
I imagine a lot of people agree with Glenn, but his recommendation really demonstrates the moral knot caused by George Bush’s insistence that we’re fighting a “war on terror.” After all, killing civilian scientists and civilian leaders, even if you do it quietly, is unquestionably terrorism. That’s certainly what we’d consider it if Hezbollah fighters tried to kill cabinet undersecretaries and planted bombs at the homes of Los Alamos engineers. What’s more, if we took this tack against Iran, we’d be doing it for the same reason that terrorists target us: because it’s a more effective, more winnable tactic than conventional war.
If you think Iran is a mortal enemy that needs to be dealt with via military force, you can certainly make that case. But if you’re going to claim that terrorism is a barbaric tactic that has to be stamped out, you can hardly endorse its use by the United States just because it’s convenient in this particular case.
Case closed.
Bomb the buildings where the Mad Mullahs are.
Bomb the Presidential palace.
Bomb their nuke plants.
Bomb the plants that make the weapons that are being exported to Iraq.
Maybe bomb their oil fields.
Radical mullahs are not religious. They are political and/or supremacists. White supremacists would not be described as ethnic spokesmen.
David Koresh "had religion" too but it was not a valid defense against assault.
Consistent with American tradition, international treaties, with virtual unanimity, deplore extra-judicial assassinations as the tools of savages and barbarians.
We live in a time when savages and barbarians either have, or are close to having, nuclear weapons. Treaties and traditions mean nothing if the signers of those treaties and the possessors of those traditions have been reduced to their atomic components.
I dunno...this treads a very fine line. I think the question is: If they think terrorism is the way to win whatever their political/religious agenda is, perhaps that it the only tactic we can use to make them understand that we will do what's necessary to not succumb to terrorism. I'm not sure "taking the moral high ground" is enough payback to let them destroy our way of life. Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire, even when that fire is slimy and stinks.
I really need to think more on this before I summarily dismiss terrorism as an option.
What this "author" does here is misidentify terrorism, in order to strike a moral equivalent.
Terrorism is the intentional, strategic, targeting of innocent civilians in order to strike "terror" into the population.
This is not the same as targeted assassinations of those who form, urge or implement that terror. Indeed, this is the most efficient, decent and responsible way to eliminate the problem while minimizing "collateral damage".
Good points
I honestly believe that, because they know our politicians will never have the guts to do something that is not politically correct, it emboldens them to take the actions that we are seeing now.
Further, I believe you're right...a few acts like you suggest would really lessen terrorists actions against the US. I also think a few snipers on the border with orders to "shoot to wound" would have a chilling effect on illegal immigration, too.
Let's bring it down to a local, personal level.
Memo to FBI, NSA, etc. The following is hypothetical.....there really is no 'crazy guy down the block', etc. This is just one of those analogy thingies.
Ok....a guy down the block is well-known in the neighborhood as a nut who believes the end of the world (as we know it) is imminent. He has repeatedly and publicly identified me as Satan incarnate. He has recently begun loudly announcing that he will kill me very soon. And, let's say I believe he'll do just what he says. What do I do besides move asap? But, I like it here.
In the old days maybe I'd just blow him, and any relatives who objected, away in his front yard. I'm not about to live in mortal fear of this schizophrenic moron. However, it's not the old days. So (due to insane, corrupt government and political correctness in general), I'm forced to devise some diabolical plot to 'do' him before he 'does' me. And, in a secretive manner. Don't forget, he's about to kill me (and possibly my family) any day now; and, I know it.
Bottom line: I'd figure it out and do whatever it takes; and soon.
Bravo... Well-stated...
It's only assassination if you get caught. We need to pick off the crazy critters and not get caught doing it.
Regarding Iran that's a false premise. They have done more than enough that falls in the catergory of provocative acts of war. We can go back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut as an example. Hizb'Allah was spawned and nurtured by Iran.
Next.
Attaching for later reference, here is Glenn Reynold's reply:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788713/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.