Furthermore, assassinations fall into three categories:
Where the assassin takes credit afterwards (for intimidation, bragging to supporters, etc), where a third party is blamed (to prevent reprisals being directed at the source), and where it is unclear that an assassination was performed (wow IBM got screwed hard by that plane crash).
From the perspective in the OP, it is clear that there is a detection challenge. The most useful categories (to an assassin) are the third and the second, the least useful is the first. An external observer will see only the first category, and a potential subset of the second category, but is unlikely to see many members of the third category.
Maybe they’re very common, and you’re just not seeing the obvious.
Even the Israelis, though, will concede that assassinations are tactic, not a strategy. The fact that they call their assassination campaign “mowing the grass” indicates the level of confidence they have in assassinations as a means of bringing a decisive end to a conflict. At best, assassinations buy time until the conflict can be ended through other means.
I agree, but shouldn’t the unattributed assassinations be somewhat detectable? I think it’s somewhat hard to mask a sabotage as an accident. (I guess I am trying to say that there should be a big class of assassinations that there is nobody to blame for.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Kill_First at least one group of people appear to have accepted at least some of your argument.
Furthermore, assassinations fall into three categories:
Where the assassin takes credit afterwards (for intimidation, bragging to supporters, etc), where a third party is blamed (to prevent reprisals being directed at the source), and where it is unclear that an assassination was performed (wow IBM got screwed hard by that plane crash).
From the perspective in the OP, it is clear that there is a detection challenge. The most useful categories (to an assassin) are the third and the second, the least useful is the first. An external observer will see only the first category, and a potential subset of the second category, but is unlikely to see many members of the third category.
Maybe they’re very common, and you’re just not seeing the obvious.
Even the Israelis, though, will concede that assassinations are tactic, not a strategy. The fact that they call their assassination campaign “mowing the grass” indicates the level of confidence they have in assassinations as a means of bringing a decisive end to a conflict. At best, assassinations buy time until the conflict can be ended through other means.
I agree, but shouldn’t the unattributed assassinations be somewhat detectable? I think it’s somewhat hard to mask a sabotage as an accident. (I guess I am trying to say that there should be a big class of assassinations that there is nobody to blame for.)
Using the suggested framework, those would be class 2 not class 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/susantardanico/2012/03/28/entire-management-team-killed-a-ceos-turnaround-story/ accident or successful class 3 assassination? As I understand it, analysis of these situations can be aided by wearing the correct headgear: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TinfoilHat