> But in _recent_ memory, the one that comes to mind immediately is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi not too long after 9/11. His death disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq which almost certainly was a net benefit.

Giving rise to ISIS.

> Bin laden himself also comes to mind but it's unclear how much more potential he had to inflict terror on the world at the time in his life when he was assassinated.

Political theater at best.

▲

baby_souffle 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Giving rise to ISIS.

Debatable as to weather it delayed or intensified ISIS but I think you're missing my broader point; his disposal prevented immediate harm and that was a net benefit.

> Political theater at best.

I'd argue there was a very symbolic benefit and even if there is/was a power vacuum.

I floated this question to a friend that likes to nerd out on geopolitics and they suggested that there's a few warlords in africa that tend to end civil wars and make way for successful peace talks after they're dead. I had never heard of the UNITA but as soon as Jonas Savimbi was assassinated, a decade+ civil war ended and Angola had elections shortly thereafter.

Goodwins law would apply if any of the _many_ attempts had succeeded.

	▲	tolerance 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		WAPO, March 2007 > Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week put the number of foreigners now arriving in Iraq to join the AQI-led Sunni insurgency at "perhaps several dozen a month" from neighboring Syria, most of them volunteers for suicide-bombing missions. > Little more than a year ago, AQI's back was against the wall, its efforts to recruit Iraqi Sunni nationalist and secular groups undermined by its violent tactics against civilians and the fundamentalist doctrine of its founder, Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Its attempt in January 2006 to draw other insurgent groups under the banner of a Shura, or consultative council, was largely unsuccessful. > "When Zarqawi was killed in June," a senior intelligence official said, "a lot of us thought that was going to be a real milestone in our progress against the group." Instead, he said, "al-Masri has succeeded in establishing his own leadership, keeping the operational tempo up and propelling sectarian violence to higher levels." From the February 2006 bombing of the golden dome of a Shiite shrine in Samarra through the huge bombings in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad in November, AQI steadily "pushed the sectarian violence into a new era," the official said. — https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/0... Al-Zarqawi’s reputation preceded him. But al-Qaeda fared well enough into to al-Masri’s leadership and beyond. > I'd argue there was a very symbolic benefit and even if there is/was a power vacuum. This is what I mean by it being theatre. Never heard of Savimbi or the Angolan conflict either. I found this: https://theafricancriminologyjournal.wordpress.com/2022/02/1... Thanks for the pointer. You know, I’m sorry. Can you introduce me to that geopolitics nerd friend you have? I wasn’t even aware of the full context of this thread. I just had the urge to nerd out and share resources and make points and do anything short of trying on only prove you wrong about one specific part of an argument that I don’t even agree with—that assassinations are universally bad. I think whether it's viable preemptive measure depends on a lot. In the present context (Kirk’s), it’s doubtful. I’m sorry for putting you through this, baby_souffle. And did you mean to refer to Godwin or Goodhart’s law.