This is coolbert:
Even during war time, and even when opposed by an enemy who attitude is totally intractable, it is NOT ALWAYS ADVISABLE TO CONSIDER ASSASSINATION OF THE ENEMY POLITICAL LEADER AND COMMANDER AS AN OPTION!
Decisions, made at the highest level, for instance, to assassinate Hitler, had to include a judgment as TO WHAT WOULD FOLLOW AFTERWARDS IF THE DEED WAS ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED!!
From the book, "The Spymasters of Israel":
[in this particular context, speaking of the late Chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat!]
"Politicians like Arafat are expendable. Remove one, and another, perhaps even more extreme, will spring up in his place . . . there is every advantage in maintaining in office the political leader of the other side, unless one can be sure that by removing him, one has made room for opponents whose friendliness can be guaranteed . . . Arafat represented some kind of continuity. They had learned his thought processes and could, with some confidence, predict his future actions."
Well, there you have it in a nutshell. With Yasser Arafat the Israeli felt that they had the known quantity. It would have counter-productive to remove the man from the scene, whether by assassination or by other means less violent. THAT IS NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE MAN [YASSER] WAS CONTROLLED IN ANY MANNER, ONLY THAT HE REPRESENTED A MEASURABLE ENTITY!
With Yasser, the Israeli knew that if they pressed button A, they would get response B from Arafat. At least to a degree, the man was predictable and you had a good idea of what he would do in a given situation.
The same was true with Hitler? Hitler, while he was not referred to as such, functioned as a generalissimo? A political leader also directing the military and calling all the shots. That is my understanding of the word generalissimo.
With Hitler out of the way, Stalin and the western allies could not could upon the situation being understandable and predictable, to the extent that events could be foretold.
It was preferred to have the known quantity, as bad as that was, compared to what might follow? Such was the thinking?
coolbert.
No comments:
Post a Comment