The point of targeted killing policy and alternatives?

[AqD]

i.e. the policy of cutting off snake head.

Such policy seems to have become prevalent almost everywhere - real world operations, books and movies, not just in US but across the world. It's intriguing that every time there is an operation, success is about getting the key figures, but why and how did this become so that people automatically believe things should be done that way?

Its failure is well known: decades after drug war started it's still going on, same for Taliban. Neither has it disrupted any gangster groups such as Triad. The reason for failure is even more obvious and self-explanatory: those enemies are whole ecosystems or mini nations. Killing the queen would never destroy England, for example.

Take the naturally evolved attack pattern of wolves for instance, they pick off victims one by one, starting from the weakest. Or the Mongolian way of besieging by terrorizing surrounding villages and forcing them to run into the city, spreading fear and increasing their burden of supplies. To translate this to modern attacks, it would mean the success rate to be re-defined as total count of neutralized enemies and the primary means would be to create fear rather than martyrs: burn the homes of soldiers, terrorize their families to force cooperation and so on (similar to cartel's method?).

Perhaps too bloody to the public? But drone strikes aren't exactly bloodless and prolonged conflicts have created more problems. Are there better alternatives?



Sources:

- https://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.c...s-failing.html
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...36.2013.845383 (very long)

[antaeus]

An alternative would be to not consider other people's homes as your sphere of influence.

But greedy alphas are gonna alpha.

[athanaric]

Are there better alternatives?

I don't think combating systemic problems with short-term solutions such as targted killing is going to cut it. IMO the problem is that the best solutions are complicated and time-consuming to implement, because they rest on more than one variable and are mostly strategic. But politicians and the public want quick results, and eliminating an enemy leader is good PR (also, that's understandable if said leader has been guilty of particularly heinous crimes).
I mean, of course you could consider the Mongolian approach (or "the other Mongolian approach"...), but that usually doesn't sit so well with the public either.

[AqD]

Or it can be escalated and forcing people to take sides publicly, like what's done against Communists in which the public had no choice but to accept?

The cartels in Columbia for example enjoyed huge support from some regions and by escalation people would have to switch side or fight? Or something like arming all villages in Afghanistan and requiring them to join offensives?

[conon394]

By itself its a useful tool. But so are a lot of things useful tools. The Phoenix program while brutal was successful by all accounts even those of North. Problem is un moored from from any policy that produced a robust and non corrupt government in South Vietnam and realistically a policy by the US to actually invade the North it was pointless. Same goes for say A-stan. Decapitating Taaliban i or Al Quida leaders is a fine toll. But as long as the US occupation was always known to temporary and as long as the US basically just manged to restore a corruptly run non Taliban government.... well all the drone assassinations in the world are not going to cut it or solve your problem. If you run a decapitation assassination program long enough it will increase friction I suppose in you opponats operation. But say with the Taliban the problem is they can play asymmetric warfare just as well. So I'm not sure there is a net gain.

At an operational level decapitation can I think be seen as more useful. You gotta admit if the Persians manged to poison Alexander and his key generals after say Issus while they were drinking in victory. That would create some real confusion. The Army would likely have to fall back to Asia minor and end under Antigonus. But that would leave two Macedonian armies the other at home under Antipater. Add also almost certain large scale Greek revolt. And Alexander mother in Epirus well The King would a fair long while to lick his wounds after his defeat. And ask who send money too as well possibility all sides. That narrative is bit strategic but the same goes right before the Battle. Wipe all the senior general the day before Issus and I'm not you say the Army would pull itself to gather and do anything plan to run to Asia Minor. But In either case Persia still needs a plan. So get a three way or more way fight factions, they need make sure nobody ends on top with what Philip had plus Asia minor or they lost advantage a tactical move provided them.


I guess it really depends on the level of 'corporate' or 'bureaucratic' institutionalism there is in an organization vs how much it depends on 'charismatic leadership' to really get bang of decapitation. But even best possible situations still require a bigger tool kit than one tool.
.

[Heathen Hammer]

Defeating an enemy leader is a symbolic success, but in case of 2 mentioned conflicts, Taliban in Afghanistan and cartels in Central America, the underlying factors aren't enemy leaders.
In case of Afghanistan, the only long-term solution is to just leave. NATO was there for 20 years, if its population wanted democracy and free market capitalism they'd have that by now, but since nothing changed in 20 years, it is quite clear that they don't. Its not us, its them. Just leave. Military-industrial complex and its chickenhawk intelligence agencies and politicians will be kicking and screaming, but they have to learn their place anyways.
How to deal with drug cartels? Stop criminalizing drugs. Legalize drugs (not just weed, cocaine and other scary ones too) and let the nature and market economy take their course. Stop giving violent organized crime an ability to monopolize and enrich themselves, while wasting millions of taxpayer funds on trying to prevent adults from indulging themselves in non-violent victim-less act of recreational drug consumption. Alphabet agencies will be kicking and screaming, but they also must be put in their place.

[antaeus]

Defeating an enemy leader is a symbolic success, but in case of 2 mentioned conflicts, Taliban in Afghanistan and cartels in Central America, the underlying factors aren't enemy leaders.
In case of Afghanistan, the only long-term solution is to just leave. NATO was there for 20 years, if its population wanted democracy and free market capitalism they'd have that by now, but since nothing changed in 20 years, it is quite clear that they don't. Its not us, its them. Just leave. Military-industrial complex and its chickenhawk intelligence agencies and politicians will be kicking and screaming, but they have to learn their place anyways.
How to deal with drug cartels? Stop criminalizing drugs. Legalize drugs (not just weed, cocaine and other scary ones too) and let the nature and market economy take their course. Stop giving violent organized crime an ability to monopolize and enrich themselves, while wasting millions of taxpayer funds on trying to prevent adults from indulging themselves in non-violent victim-less act of recreational drug consumption. Alphabet agencies will be kicking and screaming, but they also must be put in their place.

Chickenhawk alphabet rubbish aside... I agree. You can't kill an idea by executing a political leader. Apart from the fact that doing that harms your own legitimacy as "good", it just creates a martyr for the idea, potentially making the idea stronger by giving it heroes to worship and making it's organisational structure more difficult to identify.

And if you find yourself heavily invested overseas fighting ideas that other people believe in, you're the problem. Learn to work with people, not dominate them. You have more chance winning battles of ideas by showing your way of life promotes wealth and happiness than you do by showing that your way of life kills their neighbours and children.

[Heathen Hammer]

Chickenhawk alphabet rubbish aside... I agree. You can't kill an idea by executing a political leader. Apart from the fact that doing that harms your own legitimacy as "good", it just creates a martyr for the idea, potentially making the idea stronger by giving it heroes to worship and making it's organisational structure more difficult to identify.

How is it rubbish? Foreign wars are a major source of funding for alphabet agencies and military-industrial complex that routinely team up with corporate media and pro-war politicians to justify more and more "exportation of democracy".
Pretty much same thing is happening with "war on drugs", it is lobbied by same cluster of alphabet "intelligence" agencies who occasionally are themselves involved with dealing with those cartels, painting a picture of major corruption.

And if you find yourself heavily invested overseas fighting ideas that other people believe in, you're the problem. Learn to work with people, not dominate them. You have more chance winning battles of ideas by showing your way of life promotes wealth and happiness than you do by showing that your way of life kills their neighbours and children.

The point is that Taliban in Afghanistan and cartels in Mexico thrive regardless of NATO presence in the former and archaic anti-drug prohibition laws in North America correspondingly. The fact that rural population of A-stan favors religious fundamentalism, while there are still money to be made from having a de-facto monopoly on billion-worth drug trafficking. The only thing that can change Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan - but it would have to be organic and thinking that propping up some corrupt regime that often tends to violate rights and freedoms as much as Taliban does is delusional. Same thing with cartels - they will never go away unless drugs become legal in North America, since demand for recreational use of such drugs is here to stay and will not go away.