We Came, We Saw, He Died: Quotes From A Sorcerer's Apprentice

A friend wrote: "If NATO purposely bombs a Foreign Leader, I presume with intent to kill, is it now fair game for a Foreign Group to try to kill a NATO Leader?

i.e. The IRA trying to kill Prime Minister David Cameron."


According to Wikileaks, Obama tried to visit Hiroshima and apologize but the Japanese were too worried about the reaction by the antinuclear movement. Obama did send a letter of condolences to the family of the guy they killed with the drone in Yemen. So the short answer I suppose is: You can kill anyone you want as long as you're sorry.

But I don't mean to trivialize the question. I think a responsible, ethical nation should behave within certain restrictions in matters of war. First, all wars should be declared. No country should hid behind some artificial convention or union in an effort to hid its responsibilities. A group of nations at war is a collection of individual nations with a seemingly common aim. America should never go to war because the French need oil, regardless how close we might be. Under those circumstances we would be mercenaries. Good will is an asset too. (I'm speaking here of open display of war, not secret service activity.)

Second, a nation should never go to war without suffering. Displacing all the risk on to young soldiers while life at home proceeds apace is revolting and, incidentally, the essence of inflation in war as the citizens' lives do not contract.

Third, targeting leaders is a creepy displacement of conflict. Our international problems are the result of policy, not personality. (One might have an argument about Chavez.)Bush was the American leader and invaded Iraq as our representative. Hating him individually and not holding those who elected him responsible as well misunderstands the nature of the state. Believing that countries are nascent Tupperware parties waiting to be released from the jackboot of the oppressor completely frees the citizenry of any responsibility of the nation's behavior and likely will release a chaotic genie where policies will be piously manipulated by attacking the top of the national pyramid. "And just one death will make war more safe..."

Fourth, the belief one can fine tune a country by surgical strikes on leaders has a number of very disturbing qualities. First is arrogance, the certainty that one leader knows best, not for himself or his nation but for his current enemy's nation. Another culture with another history. That is serious arrogance. Second is more arrogance. How can anyone say that one can remove one person for the betterment of others? Are we the End of History? It is like a science fiction nightmare where someone goes back in time to kill Hitler and is surprised when he returns home to find Eastern Europe still smouldering and the rest of the world speaking German because the leader who took Hitler's place in history decided not to fight a two front war.

Real assassins know the truth: Assassination is the result of symbolism, hatred and, sometimes, money. There's not a lick of advancement in it.