The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani

The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani

Introduction

Major general Qassim Suleimani got killed through a military rocket attack, which also claimed the lives of Iraq nationalities. The attacks came as a consequence of crossing the “red line” engraved by the U.S. president. America had given Iran conditions against harming any American nationality. Iranian terrorist insurgents, through the stewardship of Qassim Suleimani, failed to adhere to U.S. instructions. Instead, they continued marshaling their terrorist organizations to Americans and even plotting to cause more harm. As a result, the U.S. led an airstrike that eventually killed General Qassim Suleimani.

Justifications for killing Major general Qassim Suleimani in relation to Hobbes theory

The generals killing is viewed as justified, and legally and strategically okay. The remarks appear to be in line with Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy. According to Hobbes, an ideal variant of government is the monarch. Hobbes believes that human beings are naturally born to be egocentric. Human beings should not be left to rule on their own without any form of government. They are likely to engage in constant warfare. Therefore, a man’s life is short, brutish, nasty, weak, and solitary (Hobbes, 2016). Due to human’s pessimistic attitude regarding life, a monarch government was the only solution since such administrations could countercheck the selfish human impulses. Because the U.S. government is a monarch, it is arguable that they applied Hobbes theory. No single person should have absolute control over the other. It is evident that Qassim Suleimani was a leader of a terror organization in Iran, and he constantly spearheaded terror-related activities that made the world appear unstable (Jahanbani, 2020). His main target was America because the U.S. has been at the forefront of fighting against terrorism than any other country in the world. Besides, the U.S. is also the global superpower, and any act of destabilizing the country means that the economy, in this case, terror-related entities, are forces to reckon with in globes military and political arena. Because terror-related activities are increasingly getting out of hand, the state must exercise absolute power, in particular when global peace initiatives appear in jeopardy. During such scenarios, the globe’s superpowers get expected to take center-stage in the efforts and war to eliminate such terror-related activities.

According to the U.S. attorney general, William Bar, the U. S president, was justified for the death of Major General Qassim Suleimani. The white house consulted widely with the U.S. Department of justice, and the strike was justified. There is a general belief that Iranians have instigated several violent attacks against American nationalities, including the troops, with an agenda of driving the U.S. citizens out of the middle-east. Despite the strike occurring successfully, antagonists have queried the timing of the event. Also, the U.S. administration is getting criticized for its failure to notify the congress, an institution wielding power to declare an act of war or state of emergency.

The reason behind the war is that it was initiated as an act of self-defense since the strike interrupted looming attacks that would have caused more havoc to American society and the world at large. The situation appears perplexing. According to the United States of America constitutions, it is the congress that wields absolute powers to declare an act of war. However, the commander in chief is also given powers through the law. The president can apply military force to defend the country. The situation becomes even more complicated when international treaties get cited (George, 2013). According to the United Nations Charter, a country is not allowed to use force against another country without consent from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The only exception towards the force is during situations of self-defense against attack, or when the country wants to prevent itself against a looming attack (Neil, 2003). Senior officials like the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, have reiterated that the attacks got castigated out of self-defense. However, Trump’s administration has failed to provide any evidence related to their cause so far. Besides, if the country was justified in its action for self-defense, the administration is legally mandated through Article 51 to report its action to the UNSC. Such information gives transparency to the legal basis behind strikes of such magnitudes.

There is also the issue of assassination attached to the killings. However, if the U.S. administration convincingly concludes that that Suleiman’s death occurred as a result of self-defense, then, according to American laws, the death does not qualify as assassination. Through the same amendment, different administrations (Obama’s, Bush, and Clinton’s) have all concluded that the application of drone or military strikes against people planning attacks to American citizens does to infringe both domestic and international treaties governing assassinations.

Justifications for war with Kropotkin’s view

According to Kropotkin’s view of the state, there are various fallacies about capitalism, feudalism, and economic systems. These ambiguities generate artificial scarcity and poverty, and at the same time, they promote privilege to the few (Kinna, 2017). Kropotkin proposes a decentralized financial system anchored on voluntary cooperation, mutual support, and mutual aid.

Concerning Kropotkin’s view of the state, Killing of General Qassim Suleiman should not have arisen. Kropotkin’s view accentuates that such acts are merely due to selfish interest because the U.S. was not in a state of war. The country has not provided evidence regarding intended attacks, and therefore because the U.S. violated both local and international treaties, they acted in a capitalistic manner. Kropotkin believes that the U.S. airstrike was ill-advised, and it was led by selfish interests, instead of envisaged gains. The airstrike does not endure one of the U.S. foreign policies of making the globe a safe place free from extreme organizations like the terror entities. Kropotkin believes that through anarchism, such controversies can be avoided because no single government or entity can wield absolute powers over another individual. Through Kropotkin’s theory, the U.S. could have widely consulted and even requested the intervention of intermediaries like the UNSC before killing a Major General from a foreign country (Grossman, 2020). Kropotkin believes that the killing was a result of greed or the need to prove capitalism instead of seeking consensus on such contentious issues.

Personal Reflection

The death of Qassim gets viewed through both a legal and political perspective. One school of thought anchors on the opinion that it was an assassination attempt so that the U.S could demonstrate their superpower prowess. Another thought is that killing the major general was necessary to stabilize the world’s peace agenda. Despite this, in my view, any of the issues could have been settled through international tribunals. Acts of terrorism do not justify the killing of a Major General from another country. Besides, such actions are a violation of international treaties, especially if there is no evidence linking the general to the heinous acts. Therefore, the U.S., as the world’s superpower, must demonstrate an excellent example through its foreign policy because the country gets considered as the role model of the world.

Conclusion

The case of killing Qassim Suleiman is a very contentious issue in global economics. There is a school for thought anchored on Hobbes theory, who believes that the state must wield absolute powers over the control of other individuals. These personalities believe that the U.S. was justified in Killing the Major General. These are also antagonists believing in Kropotkin’s ideologies. Such individuals have applied the belief that the act was brutal, and instead, the state could have adopted a more diplomatic approach. These are the same people advocating for justice and that the U.S. should be held accountable for assassination. Despite the opposing viewpoint, the case of General Qassim Suleiman is one of the few. There should be a consensus regarding contentious issues, and intermediaries should be used to ensure that global peace initiatives get upheld.

References

George, K.(2013). History of Political Theory: An introduction. Volume 2 Second edition.

Grossman, Z. (2020). Killing Iran’s Qassim Soleimani: Rule of law or rule of the jungle? Retrieved from http://www.shoah.org.uk/category/middle-east/

Hobbes, T. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy). Routledge. Retrieved from https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2015-0-79410-3&isbn=9781315507606&format=googlePreviewPdf

Jahanbani, N. (2020). Beyond Soleimani: Implications for Iran’s Proxy Network in Iraq and Syria. Retrieved from https://ctc.usma.edu/beyond-soleimani-implications-irans-proxy-network-iraq-syria/

Kinna, R. (2017). When Kropotkin met Lenin. Retrieved from https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/When_Kropotkin_met_Lenin/9468995/files/17093174.pdf

Neil A. Englehart (2003). In Defense of State Building: States, Rights, and Justice. Social Science Premium Collection. Fall 2003; 50, 4, p18.