People are throwing around a lot of terms tonight like preemption and assassination. These terms matter as policy and in practice between states. I will try to explain with the help of the Avengers. /1
War is an acknowledged state of hostilities between state actors. That's not where we are. It's what we did in Iraq in 1991 (under UN flag), and 2003 (more on that in a sec). We're not in that with Iran. /2
There are different kinds of war. "Preemptive" war is attacking when you're about to be attacked, spoiling the other's attack first. It's self-defense. Historically acceptable; Israel 1967 is the usual example. It's hitting the other guy first, because he's about to hit you. /3
"Preventive" war is discretionary attack. It's striking because it's congenial to your plans, not because you are in imminent danger. Historically, unacceptable. Japan 1941, Germany in Norway 1940; the US (sadly) in 2003. It's mean to stop a threat from maturing. /4
How does killing Soleimani fit into this? That's a hard question. Depends on you define him. Clearly, U.S. lawyers agreed that he was a threat. But he's also the agent of a recognized state. /5
Here's the thing. The U.S. can, I think, argue that Soleimani's attacks outside of Iran's borders against U.S. forces allowed us to take him out in self-defense because his previous attacks remove a lot of the burden of waiting for more evidence of a threat. /6
If, on the other hand, you think of his as just another military officer of a bad regime, then you're going to see this as assassination rather than either self-defense - or a casualty of ongoing hostilities. (That was our argument for hitting a car full of baddies in Yemen.) /7
I am not a lawyer and not making a legal argument; I do, however, teach the history and practice of the theory of Just War, which informs a lot of that thinking. And this isn't that clear a case either way, imo, depending on what you think QS was doing. /8
Personal opinion: I think he was a legit target for years of violence against us on actual battlefields. Is that "assassination?," I guess, in the way, say, killing a high-ranking NVA officer helping the Viet Cong in the south would be in 1967. Preemptive? Preventive? Ah, no. /9
So, a legit target in a war zone, imo. But do I think striking him *now* was a good idea? With this uh, "team" in the White House? That's another issue for another time. And with that, I'm done. /10x
