Was it assassination for American drones to target and kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani? I hope not, but I'm very troubled and trying to learn and understand more. Was this combat, or crime, or somehow both?
As a student of history, particularly World War II, I read with concern about the shoot-down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto by US Army Air Forces. Knowing the enemy's flight plans, American flyers conducted an extremely challenging mission ("
Operation Vengeance") and shot down the Admiral's aircraft over the Solomon Islands on April 18, 1943.
Writing about it,
some historians called it an assassination, questioning the morality to intentional targeting even of combat leaders. Tellingly, Navy Secretary Knox himself had to give permission for an attack he considered morally questionable in targeting an individual, and in this case he knew it was both for vengeance and for tactical advantage. Rather than the legality of it, Knox questioned the insult to American morals He was swayed by the military considerations of eliminating the Japanese naval mastermind. Researching it, Knox concluded that, under the laws of war at that time, the mission to
kill Yamamoto was a legal act of war. But not necessarily a moral act; Knox was forever troubled by the injury done to American values with his attack order.
Avoiding targeting of opposing leaders isn't just a modern moral or legal question: even at Waterloo, Wellington stopped his artillery firing upon Napoleon.
So the American drone targeting a specific Iranian general (a legal visitor to Iraq and a military officer from a nation with whom we are not at war) certainly has invited
questions and even direct challenges, especially because our moral and legal foundations have evolved over the years since 1943, in part influenced by serious and appropriate self-questioning about the Yamamoto mission. For instance, assassination has been illegal per American law since 1981. It is clear that the morality of war changes with time. Let's hope that's for the better.
For me, the most serious question comes about because of recent years and clear l
egal prohibitions against
CIA and other intelligence assassinations.
Generally-accepted morality and the laws of war do not prohibit the targeting of generals and admirals; in fact the killing of soldiers is nearly always permissible, unless they lay down their weapons in which case it is always illegal. In fact, the underlying concept in the laws of war is military necessity, meaning that even those things prohibited by the laws of war, such as the unintentional killing of civilians, can be argued as permissible if they are a matter of military necessity.
It is the motivations of the decision makers that dictate the morality of the mission, for targeting military leaders solely for the purpose of revenge is in fact unethical and immoral – lethal revenge is best left to legal processes, if possible! If we accept what has been reported about General Qasem Soleimani's actions in Iraq, he was actively targeting American and allied interest and conducting terror campaigns, and thus himself became a legitimate target.
The 2001
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution, seems to grant the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against terrorists with impunity. Thus, nobody should expect to be completely safe (physically, morally or legally) from an overhead MQ-9 Reaper armed with a Hellfire missile when actively plotting the deaths of Americans and our friends.
While US officials have determined that Soleimani is a terrorist, he was also a ranking general in a sovereign government, so targeting him tempts war with Iran in a new way.
I don't expect nations in the Middle East will see it our way, especially with administration speaking points focusing more on the general's death to prevent vague future operations against us, or as retaliation for suspected bad acts in the past...because those excuses sound more and more like an illegal revenge assassination.
