Decapitation (military strategy)

Last updated

Decapitation is a military strategy aimed at removing the leadership or command and control of a hostile government or group. [1] [2]

Contents

Genocide

In nuclear warfare

In nuclear warfare theory, a decapitation strike is a pre-emptive first strike attack that aims to destabilize an opponent's military and civil leadership structure [5] in the hope that it will severely degrade or destroy its capacity for nuclear retaliation. It is essentially a subset of a counterforce strike but whereas a counterforce strike seeks to destroy weapons directly, a decapitation strike is designed to remove an enemy's ability to use its weapons.

Strategies against decapitation strikes include the following:

A failed decapitation strike carries the risk of immediate, massive retaliation by the targeted opponent. Many countries with nuclear weapons specifically plan to prevent decapitation strikes by employing second-strike capabilities. Such countries may have mobile land-based launch, sea launch, air launch, and underground ballistic missile launch facilities so that a nuclear attack on one area of the country will not totally negate its ability to retaliate.

Other nuclear warfare doctrines explicitly exclude decapitation strikes on the basis that it is better to preserve the adversary's command and control structures so that a single authority remains that is capable of negotiating a surrender or ceasefire. Implementing fail-deadly mechanisms can be a way to deter decapitation strikes and respond to successful decapitation strikes.

Conventional warfare, assassination and terrorist acts

Decapitation strikes have been employed in as a strategy in conventional warfare. The term has been used to describe the assassination of a government's entire leadership group or a nation's royal family.

In recent warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are popularly used for decapitation strikes against terrorist and insurgent groups. Drones are most effective in areas with inadequate air defense. There are mixed scholarly opinions whether or not decapitation strikes via drones effectively degrade the capabilities of these groups. [11]

Some military strategists, like General Michael Flynn, have argued that the experience gained by the American and Coalition military experience from fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan was in support of kill or capture operations, but that they would be ineffective without a full understanding of how they would affect the local political landscape in the country. [12]

Robert Pape has argued that decapitation is a relatively ineffective strategy. He writes that decapitation is a seductive strategy as it promises "to solve conflicts quickly and cheaply with... little collateral damage, and minimal or no friendly casualties", but decapitation strikes frequently fail or are not likely to produce the intended consequences even if successful. [13]

Counterterrorism theorists Max Abrahms and Jochen Mierau argue that leadership decapitation in a terrorist or rebel group has the tendency to create disorder within the group, but find decapitation ineffective because group disorder can often lead to politically ineffective, unfocused attacks on civilians. The two conclude that "[t]his change in the internal composition of militant groups may affect the quality and hence selectivity of their violence." [14]

One tactic that is sometimes used to inform the target selection for decapitation strikes is social network analysis. This tactic involves identifying and eliminating higher ranked members in a hierarchically arranged rebel or terrorist group by targeting lower members first, and using intel gained in initial strikes to identify an organization's leadership. Some strategists, like Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, have also called for dedicated task units that are non-hierarchical and can be reorganized, in order to face similar distributed or decentralized terrorist groups. [15] Others, however, argue that decapitation strikes combined with social network analysis are more than unproductive, but can prolong a conflict due to their habit of eliminating rebel or terrorist leaders who are the most capable peace negotiators or have the potential to advance communities hardest hit by terror campaigns after the cessation of hostilities. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First strike (nuclear strategy)</span> Preemptive attack using nuclear weapons

In nuclear strategy, a first strike or preemptive strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's strategic nuclear weapon facilities, command and control sites, and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mutual assured destruction</span> Doctrine of military strategy

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear strategy</span> Doctrines and plans for production and use of atomic weapons

Nuclear strategy involves the development of doctrines and strategies for the production and use of nuclear weapons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear utilization target selection</span>

Nuclear utilization target selection (NUTS) is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD). NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation pioneered by Herman Kahn. This leads to a number of other conclusions regarding the potential uses of and responses to nuclear weapons.

A surgical strike is a military attack which is intended to damage only a legitimate military target, with no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003–2006 phase of the Iraqi insurgency</span> Part of the Iraq War

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq was completed and the regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled in May 2003, an Iraqi insurgency began that would last until the United States left in 2011. The 2003–2006 phase of the Iraqi insurgency lasted until early 2006, when it escalated from an insurgency to a Sunni-Shia civil war, which became the most violent phase of the Iraq War.

The "Rumsfeld Doctrine", named after former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is a phrase coined by journalists concerned with the perceived transformation of the military of the United States. It would be considered Rumsfeld's own take on RMA. It seeks to increase force readiness and decrease the amount of supply required to maintain forces, by reducing the number in a theater. This is done mainly by using LAVs to scout for enemies who are then destroyed via airstrikes. The basic tenets of this military strategy are:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain</span> Political party

The Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain was a Shi'a Islamist militant group that advocated theocratic rule in Bahrain from 1981 to the 1990s. It was based in Iran and trained and financed by Iranian intelligence and Revolutionary Guards.

The history of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) began in 1974 as a Marxist–Leninist organization under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan. In 1978 the organization adopted the name "Kurdistan Workers Party" and waged its low-level Urban War in Turkish Kurdistan between 1978 and 1980. The PKK restructured itself and moved the organization structure to Syria between 1980 and 1984, after the 1980 Turkish coup d'état. The Kurdish-Turkish conflict began in earnest in 1984. The rural-based insurgency lasted between 1984 and 1992. The PKK shifted its activities to include urban attacks against Turkish military bases between 1993–1995 and later 1996–1999. Öcalan was captured in Kenya in early 1999. After a "self declared peace initiative of 1999", hostilities resumed in February 2004. 2013 saw another ceasefire, but the conflict resumed again in 2015 and has continued since.

In military doctrine, countervalue is the targeting of an opponent's assets that are of value but not actually a military threat, such as cities and civilian populations. Counterforce is the targeting of an opponent's military forces and facilities. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., records the first use of the word in 1660 and the first use in the modern sense in 1965 in which it is described as a "euphemism for attacking cities".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–United States relations after 1979</span> Overview of Iranian–American relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been embroiled in tense relations with the U.S. and its allies. Following the hostage crisis, both countries severed relations. Since then, both countries have been involved in numerous direct confrontations, diplomatic incidents, and proxy wars throughout the Middle East, which has caused the tense nature of the relationship between the two to be called an 'international crisis'. Both countries have often accused each other of breaking international law on several occasions. The U.S. has often accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of illegally maintaining a nuclear program, as well as using strong rhetoric against Israel, of which Iran has questioned its legitimacy and its right to exist while supporting Hamas, an antizionist terrorist group in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Iran has often accused the U.S. of human rights violations and of meddling in their affairs, especially within the Iranian Democracy Movement.

In nuclear strategy, a counterforce target is one that has a military value, such as a launch silo for intercontinental ballistic missiles, an airbase at which nuclear-armed bombers are stationed, a homeport for ballistic missile submarines, or a command and control installation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Targeted killing</span> Extrajudicial assassination by governments

Targeted killing is a form of assassination carried out by governments outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield.

Drone warfare is a form of aerial warfare or marine warfare using unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) or weaponized commercial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The United States, United Kingdom, Israel, China, South Korea, Iran, Iraq, Italy, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Poland are known to have manufactured operational UCAVs as of 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran–Israel proxy conflict</span> Ongoing conflict in Western Asia

The Iran–Israel proxy conflict, also known as the Iran–Israel proxy war or Iran–Israel Cold War, is an ongoing proxy conflict between Iran and Israel. In the Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Iran has supported Lebanese Shia militias, most notably Hezbollah. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran has backed Palestinian groups such as Hamas. Israel has supported Iranian rebels, such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran, conducted airstrikes against Iranian allies in Syria and assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. In 2018 Israeli forces directly attacked Iranian forces in Syria.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis</span> Iraqi military commander (1954–2020)

Jamal Ja'far Muhammad Ali Al Ibrahim, known by the kunyaAbu Mahdi al-Muhandis was an Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). At the time of his death, he was deputy chief of the PMF and regarded as one of Iraq's most powerful men.

In late July 2015, the third phase of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict between various Kurdish insurgent groups and the Turkish government erupted, following a failed two and a half year-long peace process aimed at resolving the long-running conflict.

Abdolreza Shahlaei is an Iranian military officer who serves as the commander of the Yemen division of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Max Abrahms is a political scientist at Northeastern University who specializes in international security, and is particularly known for his work on the Middle East and terrorism.

References

  1. Wittmann, Anna M. (2017). Talking Conflict: The Loaded Language of Genocide, Political Violence, Terrorism, and Warfare. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 92. ISBN   978-1-4408-3424-0.
  2. Blair, Christopher W.; Horowitz, Michael C.; Potter, Philip B. K. (2022). "Leadership Targeting and Militant Alliance Breakdown". The Journal of Politics. 84 (2): 923–943. doi:10.1086/715604. ISSN   0022-3816. S2CID   236227864.
  3. Blinka, David S. (2008). Re-creating Armenia: America and the memory of the Armenian genocide. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 31. In what scholars commonly refer to as the decapitation strike on April 24, 1915...
  4. "The Truth About Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The Atlantic . 6 February 2018.
  5. "Words of Intelligence: An Intelligence Professional's Lexicon for Domestic and Foreign Threats", Jan Goldman. Scarecrow Press, Jun 16, 2011. ISBN   0-8108-7814-3, ISBN   978-0-8108-7814-3
  6. "Documents on Predelegation of Authority for Nuclear Weapons Use". Archived from the original on 2020-12-18. Retrieved 2015-05-17.
  7. "U.S. Launches 'Decapitation' Strike Against Iraq; Saddam Personally Targeted". Fox News Channel. 20 March 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  8. "Cruise missiles target Saddam". CNN. 20 March 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  9. "Airstrikes on Iraqi leaders 'abject failure'". New York Times News Service. 13 June 2004. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
  10. Shinkman, Paul D. "Obama: 'Global War on Terror' Is Over". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
  11. Horowitz, Michael C. (2020). "Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics?". Annual Review of Political Science. 23: 385–400. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725 .
  12. Coll, Steve (2018). Directorate S : the C.I.A. and America's secret wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New York. pp. 437–440. ISBN   978-1-59420-458-6. OCLC   1049576269.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  13. Pape, Robert A. (1996). Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Cornell University Press. p. 253. ISBN   978-0-8014-3134-0. JSTOR   10.7591/j.ctt1287f6v.
  14. Abrahms, Max; Mierau, Jochen (2017-09-03). "Leadership Matters: The Effects of Targeted Killings on Militant Group Tactics". Terrorism and Political Violence. 29 (5): 830–851. doi:10.1080/09546553.2015.1069671. ISSN   0954-6553. S2CID   146507596.
  15. Knoke, David (2013). ""It Takes a Network": The Rise and Fall of Social Network Analysis in U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Doctrine". Connections. 33: 2–10. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.431.3800 .
  16. Wilner, Alex S. (2010-03-15). "Targeted Killings in Afghanistan: Measuring Coercion and Deterrence in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 33 (4): 307–329. doi:10.1080/10576100903582543. ISSN   1057-610X. S2CID   109972592.