In April two prominent observers of politics died. The first, John Kenneth Galbraith was an influential Canadian-American economist of the 20th century. He was a Keynesian and a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism, died on the 29th. The second, Jean-Fran????ois Revel was a French politician, journalist, author, prolific philosopher and member of the Acad????mie fran????aise since June 1998. Unfortunately, Galbraith????????s death overshadowed Revel????????s: the later did not receive the attention he deserved. Galbraith had been a charming, immodest, outspoken fellow whose every word was taken seriously: he also was almost always wrong. Revel, not dashing, stable, firm, the bete noir of the French left, was also outspoken and almost always right.

Two comments by Revel are relevant to this article:

???????democracy is zealous is devising arguments to prove the justice of its adversary????????s case and to lengthen the already overwhelming list of its own inadequacies.

It is a mistake to ascribe democratic logic to a totalitarian system.????

The West often does exactly what Revel describes in these two comments.

I had been working on this article about the importance and usefulness of eliminating particularly dangerous people on the world scene, when I received a great assist from Michael Rubin in the latest National Review< ????. He lays out, in detail, why political assassination should be considered a legitimate response in certain cases. Some of his key comments are:

If suicide bombers are allowed to kill innocents, we should be allowed to assassinate the leaders who deploy suicide bombers.

If a single bullet or bomb could forestall a far bloodier application of force, would it not be irresponsible to fail to consider that option???????

The idea that governments cannot defeat terrorism by force may be a mantra among the foreign-policy elite, but it is not true.

Any individual, be he guerrilla or a state official, who is involved in planning terrorist attacks is a combatant and, according to international law, a legitimate target.

I fully agree with Mr. Rubin. Further, state led terrorism is growing too rapidly and creating too many current and future problems. Steps should be taken to avert the problems. As Thomas Sowell points out, we are fast approaching the point of no return????. Also, some dictators have created situations which severely castigate their own citizens, simply to achieve the objectives of the dictators. These people should also be considered for elimination.

Background given, and with thanks to Mr. Rubin for his considerable help, I propose a list of International people who deserve to be eliminated from their posts (and the world). I will list them in terms of urgency.

*****

Hassan Nasrallah

His role as leader of Hezbollah, the Party of God, has created so much danger and destruction that listing him is obvious. It seems that he is in deep hiding because he knows that the Israelis are looking for him.

*****

Moqtada al-Sadr

Backed by Iranian Shi????????ites, determined to be a major factor in his country, he is responsible for much of the internal carnage in Baghdad. He has denounced as “puppets” the members of Iraq’s U.S.-appointed Governing Council. He also announced his own plans to form a militia and his intention to form an Islamic state in Iraq by establishing a shadow government there, complete with ministries. His elimination could lead to considerable progress in democratizing Iraq.

*****

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

His refusal to halt development of nuclear weapons and enrichment of uranium combined with his frequent and virulent statements against Israel and the West, make him one of the most dangerous political leaders in the world. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will soon have them. Diplomatic negotiations most likely won????????t work: Security Council states have an unwillingness to confront tough and resisting chaps who ignore international demands. Elimination should be considered.

*****

Ayatollah Ali Khameini

He was appointed as Iran’s Supreme Leader in June 1989, following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is the absolute authority in Tehran and is answerable to nobody. He is an arch-conservative dedicated to keeping political power in the hands of the politicized clergy. Iran’s supreme leader says his country will continue to pursue nuclear technology, despite a U.N. demand it stop sensitive nuclear work. He, like Ahmadinejad, is a very dangerous person. Eliminating Ahmadinejad without also getting rid of Khameini, won????????t work.

*****

Kim Jong-Il

His fanatical desire to acquire nuclear weapons, which apparently he has achieved, is very bad. He is a strong-willed dictator who is short-tempered and ruthless when it comes to punishing anyone who questions his policies. His nuclear weapons and his recent missile launchings are a good indicator of his probable intentions. He is a very dangerous person. But the fact that he has done this primarily by suppressing his own people, making them suffer famines and untold hardships, makes him a doubly dangerous man. He must go!

*****

Osama bin-Laden

I think I do not need to say much about this rather obvious case.

*****

In a second submission I will nominate men who should be eliminated not because they are terrorist threats but because they have treated their own peoples so badly.

1. Jean-Francois Revel. How Democracies Perish. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984, p. 8 & 19.

2. Michael Rubin, ???????An Arrow in Our Quiver: Why the U.S. Government should consider assassination.??????? National Review, Vol LVIII, No 15, August 28, 2006.

3. Townhall.com