• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Donald Trump
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • US Election
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

The Daily Devil’s Dictionary: Assassinating “High-Value” Targets

By Peter Isackson • Apr 24, 2018
Featured Video Play Icon

Targeted killings are an original way to create value by destroying it.

In an article for Al Jazeera examining the process of decision-making behind the killing in Malaysia of Fadi al-Batsh, a Palestinian scientist, journalist Ali Younes compares the methods used by Israel’s Mossad for assassinations with those of the CIA. He cites former CIA operations officer, Robert Baer, who explained, “The White House must sign off on any targeted killing operation, especially if it is a high-value target.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

High-value:

Of a quality that makes it worthwhile to suspend one’s normal moral judgment

Contextual note

All human cultures consider value to be positive, the result of human effort and discipline. Even if the object to which value is attributed belongs to a private individual, it is often seen as contributing to the wealth of society. The costly towers private families built to flaunt their wealth in San Gimignano, Italy, contribute to the splendor of the entire town.

In the modern economy — whose rules over the past four decades appear to have been redefined by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman — the notion of value has been reduced a simple criterion: corporate profit. In 2006, The Economist called Friedman “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century … possibly of all of it.” Writing in Forbes several years later, Steve Denning dared to hold Friedman responsible for “the world’s dumbest idea.” As he explained, “Sadly, as often happens with bad ideas that make some people a lot of money, shareholder value caught on and became the conventional wisdom.”

Once you follow Friedman and redefine value itself according to a purely monetary calculation, it’s time to admit that a major cultural shift occurs. For shareholders in this new ethos, eliminating your adversary’s value increases your own, opening market share and justifying higher margins. It is the triumph of zero sum thinking.

The Friedman model has proved very powerful. It now influences the way governments work. Even democratically elected officials have begun functioning as if they were the employees of shareholders (people with money to pay for campaigns, not voters). Politicians have become the managers of the national economy, which has taken the form of a virtual corporation, a subsidiary of a group of powerful economic interests, the same ones that finance political campaigns. Presidents and prime ministers of powerful Western nations go abroad to sell what they can — especially the weapons they manufacture — to improve the shareholder value of the corporation they call government.

Denning describes how corporate executives now function, thanks to Friedman’s logic: “[E]xecutives were only too happy to accept the generous stock compensation being offered. In due course, they even came to view it as an entitlement, independent of performance.” Politicians have increasingly followed the same logic, leading them to forget any notion of public service. Corporations finance their campaigns. And when they leave “public service,” the same corporations offer them lucrative employment, the carefully calculated dividends of politics.

Malaysian police release facial composite sketches of two men suspected of killing Hamas member Fadi al-Batsh https://t.co/C16srgFOSD pic.twitter.com/0s6ZVN3YK3

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 23, 2018

Historical note

Although the Romans were far from alone in their awareness that nothing physical can last — Sic transit gloria mundi — all human societies have tended to seek ways to retain value as long as possible. People with valuable skills, like Fadi al-Batsh, represent an investment society has made in their education. Their ability to solve problems is a lasting asset for the society they live in, so long as they last, of course. Their skills add to the wealth of their nation and, in the case of science, to the wealth of the world.

Once upon a time, the CIA, collaborating with the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) on Operation Paperclip, was so convinced of this truth that, in the aftermath of World War II, it recruited every German Nazi scientist it could find to work on its defense program and eventually on the US space program. They deemed these men, including Werner von Braun, “high-value targets,” not to be assassinated but to be preserved and mobilized for their own purposes.

Times have changed, though there may be an easier explanation. There was more cultural affinity between Nazi Germany and the Cold War America in the aftermath of World War II, at least in their attitude toward the importance of science, than there is today between Israel and the Palestinians.

And, of course, one other thing has changed: Assassination has become increasingly banalized as the statistics show. George W. Bush authorized 48 targeted killing operations; Barack Obama, 353. Numbers for Donald Trump, more than a year into his presidency, have not been released, but many have pointed out that his policies promise exponential growth.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: artefacti / Shutterstock.com

Share Story
CategoriesArab News, International Security, Middle East & North Africa, Middle East News, North America, World News TagsAmerican news, CIA news, Israel news, Israeli news, Malaysia news, Middle East news, Mossad news, Palestine news, Palestinian news, Targeting killings
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

Fair Observer Recommends

Alex Acosta and the Guidelines of the Elite Alex Acosta and the Guidelines of the Elite
By Peter Isackson • Nov 19, 2020
American Reckoning: A New Kind of Nation American Reckoning: A New Kind of Nation
By Wade Roush • Nov 02, 2020
After the US Election, Will Civil War Become the Fashion? After the US Election, Will Civil War Become the Fashion?
By Peter Isackson • Oct 29, 2020

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious The Anti-Immigration Government in Hungary
Next PostNext Debating the Intellectual Leader of the French New Right
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept