Targeting the top leadership

[remnant]

Most wars and conflagrations the world over are caused by irresponsible decisions and posturing amongst the top leadership since time immemorial. Peace comes at a huge cost in terms of human lives and property and the same peace could have been achieved without these pains. The tragedy is that they don't bear any direct or personal consequences from the war. They can often be seen toasting delightfully over the negotiating table without caring a hoot over the catastrophe and imbroglio they have occasioned. Would hitting them directly make a difference?

 

[John Snort]

This has been attempted in the past with devastating results. When the top leadership is taken out of the picture the best case scenario is the military takes over and with a dictator at the helm things won't get any better for the people. The worst case scenario is total collapse. There'll be a drawn-out civil war as armed militias try to fill the power vacuum left when the previous leaders were killed.

That's why it's always wiser to let someone even if that person is a "monster" be in charge. Take him out and others worse than him will take his place. Look at what happened when Saddam was ousted — we've now got ISIS's Baghdadi.

 

[vash]

Taking out the leader rarely work. There are very few true dictators in the world who have total control both political power and military power. Even under an authoritarian, the decisions made are reflecting the system. The system has no single head. One top leader is just the representative of the whole system. There is always someone to replace him. Someone just like him, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse. The bottom line is, it won't end there.

Yes, there are worse scenarios. In case of a total collapse of the whole regime, you will get a country of chaos with no functional government. That's when various of gangs, militia groups, and even foreign organizations will try to gain ground.

 

[remnant]

But targeting the top leadership does not involve only those at the helm. It includes the military establishment and their proteges. Nothing will be left to chance including their economic lifelines, whatever they hold dear . In other words, a total decapitation while encouraging the suppressed opposition including renegade generals to fill the vacuum and usher in a transition.

 

[vash]

But targeting the top leadership does not involve only those at the helm. It includes the military establishment and their proteges. Nothing will be left to chance including their economic lifelines, whatever they hold dear . In other words, a total decapitation while encouraging the suppressed opposition including renegade generals to fill the vacuum and usher in a transition.

If you wipe out all the top leader(s) instead of just the one at the top at the moment, then you are going to see a total collapse of the regime if no one from the beneath them can take over. Iraq was a good example. Remember the poker printed with all the Saddam's top lieutenants? The new Iraqi government is just a puppet, with nobody has the real expertise in gathering power "in charge". All the "election" there is just a joke. Sometimes people just do not understand that such system won't work everywhere. The whole new system is a puppet, so why would you expect whoever get elected can do something really useful on his own?