Editing Assassination (section)

===As a military and foreign policy doctrine===
{{See also|Manhunt (military)|Decapitation (military strategy)|Covert operation}}
[[File:Hokusai-sketches---hokusai-manga-vol6-crop.jpg|thumb|The functions of the [[ninja]] included espionage, [[sabotage]] and assassination.]]

Assassination for military purposes has long been espoused: [[Sun Tzu]], writing around 500&nbsp;BC, argued in favor of using assassination in his book ''[[The Art of War]]''. Over 2000 years later, in his book ''[[The Prince]]'', [[Machiavelli]] also advises rulers to assassinate enemies whenever possible to prevent them from posing a threat.<ref>Machiavelli, Niccolò (1985), The Prince, University of Chicago Press. Translated by Harvey Mansfield</ref> An army and even a nation might be based upon and around a [[cult of personality|particularly strong, canny, or charismatic leader]], whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war.

For similar and additional reasons, assassination has also sometimes been used in the conduct of [[foreign policy]]. The costs and benefits of such actions are difficult to compute. It may not be clear whether the assassinated leader gets replaced with a more or less competent successor, whether the assassination provokes ire in the state in question, whether the assassination leads to souring domestic public opinion, and whether the assassination provokes condemnation from third-parties.<ref name="iraja" /><ref name=Thomas2000/> One study found that perceptual biases held by leaders often negatively affect decision making in that area, and decisions to go forward with assassinations often reflect the vague hope that any successor might be better.<ref name="iraja">{{cite journal | title=Decision Making in Using Assassinations in International Relations | url=http://www.psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19545 | journal=[[Political Science Quarterly]] | volume=131| issue=3 | date=Fall 2016 | pages= 503–539 | last1=Schilling | first1=Warner R. | author-link=Warner R. Schilling | last2= Schilling | first2=Jonathan L. |doi = 10.1002/polq.12487}}</ref>

In both military and foreign policy assassinations, there is the risk that the target could be replaced by an even more competent leader, or that such a killing (or a failed attempt) will prompt the masses to contemn<!-- not a typo for "condemn" --> the killers and support the leader's cause more strongly. Faced with particularly brilliant leaders, that possibility has in various instances been risked, such as in the attempts to kill the Athenian [[Alcibiades]] during the [[Peloponnesian War]]. A number of additional examples from [[World War II]] show how assassination was used as a tool:
* The [[Operation Anthropoid|assassination of Reinhard Heydrich]] in Prague on May 27, 1942, by the British and Czechoslovak government-in-exile. That case illustrates the difficulty of comparing the benefits of a foreign policy goal (strengthening the legitimacy and influence of the [[Czechoslovak government-in-exile]] in London) against the possible costs resulting from an assassination (the [[Lidice massacre]]).<ref name="iraja"/>
* The American interception of Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]]'s plane during World War II after his travel route had been decrypted.
* [[Operation Gaff]] was a planned British commando raid to capture or kill the German field marshal [[Erwin Rommel]], also known as "The Desert Fox".<ref name="Skor">''Commando Extraordinary'' – Foley, Charles; Legion for the Survival of Freedom, 1992, page 155</ref>

Use of assassination has continued in more recent conflicts:
* During the [[Vietnam War]], the US engaged in the [[Phoenix Program]] to assassinate [[Viet Cong]] leaders and sympathizers. It killed between 6,000 and 41,000 people, with official "targets" of 1,800 per month.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Barnett |first1=James |url=https://strausscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Barnett_James.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://strausscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Barnett_James.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=When Culture Eats Strategy: Examining the Phoenix/Phung Hoang Bureaucracy in the Vietnam War, 1967-1972 |website=Strauss Center |access-date=February 9, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=McCoy, Alfred W.|title=A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror |publisher=Macmillan|year=2006|isbn=978-0-8050-8041-4|page=68|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FVwUYSBwtKcC&pg=PA68|author-link=Alfred W. McCoy }}</ref><ref name=hersh03>{{cite magazine |author-link=Seymour Hersh |last=Hersh|first=Seymour|title=Moving Targets|magazine=The New Yorker|date=December 15, 2003|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/12/15/031215fa_fact?currentPage=all|access-date=February 9, 2021}}</ref>
* With the January 3, 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike, the US [[Assassination of Qasem Soleimani|assassinated]] the commander of Iran's [[Quds Force]] General [[Qasem Soleimani]] and the commander of Iraq's [[Popular Mobilization Forces]] [[Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis]], along with eight other high-ranking military personnel. The assassination of the military leaders was part of escalating tensions between the US and Iran and the [[American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)|American-led intervention in Iraq]].<ref>{{cite news | title=Qassem Suleimani: 'Death to America' chants at Baghdad funeral procession | url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/04/huge-crowds-expected-in-baghdad-for-funeral-of-iranian-general-killed-by-us | first=Ghait|last=Abdul-Ahat|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date= January 4, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Iran Says It Has Decided How to React to U.S. Strike That Killed Soleimani | url=https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/four-rockets-hit-military-base-near-baghdad-airport-report-says-1.8350357 | first=Amos|last=Harel|newspaper=[[Haaretz]]|date= January 4, 2020}}</ref>