Since 1976, it has been the policy of the United States not to target enemy leaders. In order to comply with this policy, and still confront the enemies of this nation, we have had to mount invasions, liberate countries, wage wars and commit our nation’s blood and treasure for indefinite periods all over the world. Reversing the policy would make the United States and the free world much safer.
The policy that prohibits the targeting and assassination of enemy leaders began with President Ford’s Executive Order 11905 in 1976. It was confirmed two years later by President Carter in Executive Order 12036, and further confirmed by President Reagan in Executive Order 12333 in 1981. Each Executive Order prohibited the deliberate assassination of enemy leaders. This policy has been defended as proof that our nation adheres to principles of humanity and the rule of law. In fact, the effect is just the opposite.
Wars are planned, declared and directed by leaders. Whether it’s Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Uganda’s Idi Amin, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, North Korea’s Kim Il Sung, Red China’s Mao Tse Dung, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, or Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler, enemy leaders are the ones who drag their followers into war. They agitate, instigate, and prosecute the endlessly costly conflicts which devour so much and claim the lives of so many.
To comply with the prohibition on assassination, American Presidents make statements that stress that we are not at war with the people of (fill in appropriate nation, religion or ethnic identity), even as we make war on those very people. Regime change is often a policy, but the regime is the product of the leader, and we purposefully avoid targeting that individual. It is the enemy leader who is responsible for the conflict, but he is the last to suffer the consequences, if he does suffer at all. For some reason, it is deemed more humane to kill hundreds or thousands of enemy soldiers or combatants while avoiding openly targeting the leaders who mobilized them.
The wars started by enemy leaders like those mentioned above often last for years, and drain the resources of not only the United States, but of nations and people on both sides of the conflict. The world would be immensely richer and more productive if such wars could be avoided or at least drastically shortened and reduced in scale. One way to accomplish that is to focus our efforts on removing the cause of the war, rather than fighting a war in the hope of eventually getting rid of the cause.
Efforts to reverse this policy arise periodically. In January of 2001, eight months before the devastating terror attacks of 9/11, Republican Georgia Congressman Bob Barr sponsored legislation to change the no assassination policy. The legislation was known as the terrorist elimination act, and simply proposed that the relevant Executive Orders be reversed. The bill did not pass, but congressional action is not necessary in any case. All that is required to cancel or reverse an Executive Order is another Executive Order. In other words, all we need is an administration that is competent and engaged in foreign policy.
Detractors will say that the United States should not be in the business of killing enemy leaders. We should not be in the business of killing anyone, but if an enemy attacks or threatens our nation, wouldn’t it be more humane to target the leader rather than his followers? Others will say that targeting enemy leaders means they will be targeting ours. But this is already the case. Enemy leaders put prices on the heads of our presidents all the time, and the targets of the hijacked airliners on 9/11 included the Pentagon and either the Capitol or the White House. Our leaders are already targeted.
Targeting enemy leaders will not be easy. As eloquently pointed out by Pete Blaber in his profound and thought-provoking 2008 book The Mission, The Men, and Me, killing a hostile head of state or terrorist leader involves much more than firing a shipload of cruise missiles at a distant target. A successful strike against an enemy leader still requires great risk and sacrifice by dedicated members of the United States military. But the overall cost, to Americans and others, is a small fraction of what is required to wage protracted wars.
Leaders of enemy states or terrorist organizations are legitimate targets. They are the commanders in chief of the forces arrayed against us. They are at the tops of the chains of command. Let them share the consequences of those who do their bidding. Let them feel the heat of the battles they seek. Put them on notice that they who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
