Gyroscopic Investing

Finally, some Middle East news that isn't depressing. Quite an interesting story actually, covering the slippery legality of it along with all the work that went into avoiding collateral damage or repeating mistakes from past botched attempts.

http://wapo.st/1CVFhSb

As Mughniyah (Hezbollah’s international operations chief) approached a parked SUV, a bomb planted in a spare tire on the back of the vehicle exploded, sending a burst of shrapnel across a tight radius. He was killed instantly. The device was triggered remotely from Tel Aviv by agents with Mossad... who were in communication with the operatives on the ground in Damascus. “The way it was set up, the U.S. could object and call it off, but it could not execute,”? said a former U.S. intelligence official.

...

A former U.S. official said the Bush administration relied on a theory of national self-defense to kill Mughniyah, claiming he was a lawful target because he was actively plotting against the United States or its forces in Iraq, making him a continued and imminent threat who could not be captured. Such a legal rationale would have allowed the CIA to avoid violating the 1981 blanket ban on assassinations in Executive Order 12333. The order does not define assassination.

So the good news out of the Middle East is that the CIA is now openly back in the assassination business?

To each his own, I guess.

A fair comment, but if you read the whole article, you will not come to the conclusion-- at least, I didn't come to the conclusion- that either agency is acting like a loose cannon.

Mughniyah was responsible for bombings, hijackings, and so many deaths around the world. Good riddance.

Edit: And there's this:

During the operation, the CIA and Mossad had a chance to kill Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, as he and Mughniyah walked together. Soleimani was an archenemy of Israel and had also orchestrated the training of Shiite militias in Iraq.
“At one point, the two men were standing there, same place, same street. All they had to do was push the button,”? said one former official.

But the operatives didn’t have the legal authority to kill Soleimani, the officials said. There had been no presidential finding to do so.

So they didn't.

dualstow wrote: A fair comment, but if you read the whole article, you will not come to the conclusion-- at least, I didn't come to the conclusion- that either agency is acting like a loose cannon.

Mughniyah was responsible for bombings, hijackings, and so many deaths around the world. Good riddance.

I did read the whole article. Thanks for posting.

You are making the argument that the end justifies the means which I disagree with but I also question whether the "end" even makes sense. In the long run, do you think open co-operation between the CIA and Israel in conducting assassinations on foreign soil will be a good thing for America?

madbean wrote: I did read the whole article. Thanks for posting.

You are making the argument that the end justifies the means which I disagree with but I also question whether the "end" even makes sense. In the long run, do you think open co-operation between the CIA and Israel in conducting assassinations on foreign soil will be a good thing for America?

I don't know if the very existence of the CIA is a good thing for America. Feeling a bit jaded, especially after that documentary. The Man Who Wasn't There, I think it's called.

As you probably know from my interactions with stone, I'm not really dovish. I still think that we should try our best to foster good relations around the world, but sadly, I also think it's a little late to not use force here and there. Maybe that sounds defeatist.

I can certainly see how future operations could be spectacular failures just like the past ones referenced in the article. And PR failures even when they succeed in their goals.  I only know that I am 100% behind the killing of Mughniyah. I do wish it handn't taken them so many years to get permission and get it done. I mean, it was going to happen "on foreign soil" because Hezbollah chiefs don't vacation in Florida. Taking him alive was considered and rejected as a non-viable option.

So what's left: leaving Mughniyah alone. Why? So that we can avoid creating bad blood? With whom? With Hezbollah? With the Syrians? I think the horse may be out of the barn on those. Weighing the repercussions of killing this one guy against all the lives he would have taken in the future...I just don't see a problem with it.

Or maybe the focus of your question was on open, open cooperation. How will other countries feel about the US cooperating with Israeli assassins and then allowing accounts of operations to be published in places like The Washington Post, is that the question?
Again, I think the horse is out of the barn. Countries don't look at the billions of dollars in aid we give to Egypt but to the billions we give to Israel. And the arms we sell to Israel, which they pay for with money we gave or lended to them.

Maybe they shouldn't post so many details about how they conduct such operations. Still, if the choice is between ending Mughniyah's life or hoping that Al Assad (whose gov't forces are allied with Hezbollah) will like us just a little bit better, I'll take the former.

"Mughniyah was targeted in a country where the United States was not at war. Moreover, he was killed in a car bombing, a technique that some legal scholars see as a violation of international laws that proscribe “killing by perfidy”? — using treacherous means to kill or wound an enemy."

Serious ROFL when I read this. A tire blows up unexpectedly or a Hellfire missile comes crashing through your car unexpectedly, is there really a difference?

The former official said getting the authority to kill Mughniyah was a “rigorous and tedious”? process. “What we had to show was he was a continuing threat to Americans,”? the official said, noting that Mughniyah had a long history of targeting Americans dating back to his role in planning the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

It seems we have long memories, at least 31 years it appears. Maybe if you don't blow up embassies you don't need to worry about exploding tires. Be careful out there kids, it's a rough world.

Kbg wrote: tire blows up unexpectedly or a Hellfire missile comes crashing through your car unexpectedly, is there really a difference?

Not really. 

had a long history of targeting Americans dating back to his role in planning the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
It seems we have long memories, at least 31 years it appears.

Yes, although '83 was the earliest bombing. Plenty of stuff since then to refresh our memories.