Hu Wei: Farewell to All-Out War, Legitimizing “Targeted Decapitation” — Reflections on War Paradigms and War Ethics

The Emerging Postmodern Warfare Paradigm

On the evening of September 27, Israeli airstrikes targeted Hezbollah’s headquarters in Lebanon. The next day, on September 28, Israel announced that Hezbollah’s top leader, Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, had been killed in the attack. Simultaneously, reports indicated that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, had been relocated to a secure location.

Recently, Israel has intensified its “targeted elimination” of Hezbollah’s senior leadership, killing 16 out of 19 members of Hezbollah’s Supreme Military Council, including top military leader Fuad Shukur, second-in-command Ibrahim Akil, missile and rocket commander Ibrahim Qubaisi, and air force commander Saqr. Military observers believe that Hezbollah’s top military command has been “wiped out,” leaving Nasrallah as almost the sole remaining leader.

Now, Nasrallah himself was killed. And, according to the latest reports, Israel has also killed Hezbollah’s new leader, Hassan Khalil Yassin, who had only replaced his cousin Nasrallah as the Secretary-General for less than 24 hours.

This string of successful decapitations can be seen as a miracle in the history of modern warfare and will be included as exemplary cases in military affairs textbooks. One cannot help but admire Israel’s depth of strategic planning—precise, meticulous, and unmatched in decision-making and execution. Let’s briefly review: On the afternoon of September 17, Hezbollah militants in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon’s southeast and northeast experienced a series of pager explosions, killing 12 people and injuring 3,000. The next day, on the 18th, 500 of Hezbollah’s walkie-talkies exploded, killing 14 and injuring 450. Subsequently, Israel launched a “preemptive” airstrike against Hezbollah, eliminating several senior leaders, culminating in Nasrallah’s assassination and the swift elimination of his successor.

This sequence of events is a masterstroke. Pager explosions took out Hamas’s grassroots leaders, walkie-talkie explosions eliminated its mid-level leaders, missile strikes eliminated high-level leaders, and finally, the top leader was eliminated. The logic behind this operation is astounding: Nasrallah had previously ordered Hezbollah’s key members to stop using mobile phones, calling them the “biggest traitors,” which led them to rely on pagers and walkie-talkies for communication. After the pager and walkie-talkie explosions, they were forced to meet in person, creating the opportunity for targeted decapitation. Nasrallah rarely visited the headquarters, but due to the unavailability of mobile phones, walkie-talkies, and pagers, he had no choice but to attend a meeting there. This shows just how clever Israel’s operation was—a perfect “chain plan.”

Reflecting on previous decapitation strikes against Hamas leaders like Ismail Haniyeh and other high-level figures, it is clear that Israel is pioneering a new paradigm in postmodern warfare.

War Ethics Need to be Reevaluated

The above actions reflect new characteristics of postmodern warfare: high-tech precision strikes and targeted eliminations of leadership, rather than large-scale human-wave tactics. This will rewrite the mode of warfare, signaling the end of the era of the whole of society warfare. Although Israel is a small country, its influence on human history is profound.

Of course, these actions are highly controversial. Whether Israel’s actions constitute legitimate self-defense or excessive use of force is a matter of perspective. I don’t wish to join this debate, but I must say that as humanity progresses, the paradigms of war and war ethics need to be reevaluated.

Many people have reservations about “targeted eliminations,” including other developed countries beyond Israel, who are cautious about embracing this strategy. At the heart of this reluctance is the unresolved question of its “legitimacy” or “justification,” which easily leads to associations with “state terrorism.” Now is the time to legitimize these actions. Which is preferable: sacrificing countless lives as “cannon fodder” or precisely eliminating a few top leaders? From the perspective of the “number” of lives saved, the answer is obvious, though the “nature” of the war may be more important. For the just side in a war, decapitating its leadership is unacceptable.

This brings us to the issue of “war ethics.” Whether targeted eliminations are just requires a clear standard. Current international law and rules do not provide clear guidelines in this area, leading to blind spots in war ethics. Hence, deliberations and definitions are urgently needed.

In at least the following scenarios, I believe targeted eliminations or “precision decapitation” is justified:

1. Against leaders of states or political organizations that launch large-scale terrorist attacks.
2. Against leaders responsible for ethnic cleansing or genocide with serious consequences.
3. Against leaders of states or organizations that commit mass killings of civilians domestically or abroad.
4. Against leaders of states or organizations that launch unjustified aggressive wars against one or more sovereign states and refuse to withdraw.
5. Against leaders of states or organizations that possess and intend to use nuclear, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction during wartime.
6. Against leaders of states or organizations that cause global or regional unrest, threatening peace with tangible consequences.

In these cases, the victimized nation or the justice-seeking nations or coalitions have the right and obligation to conduct decapitation operations against such targets. Only by doing so can greater losses be avoided. In short, these targeted eliminations must be legitimized and distinguished from state terrorism.

This issue is of great importance, and I hope the international community will pay close attention, thus filling this ethical void in warfare.

How Should the Russo-Ukraine War End?

The new ethical understanding of warfare also applies to the Russo-Ukraine war. If the situation in the Middle East is complex, the moral clarity of the Russo-Ukraine conflict is much more evident. The latter half of the six points I mentioned fully applies to Russia.

Since the outbreak of the Russo-Ukraine war, the damage to both Ukraine and Russia has been significant. According to the latest statistics from BBC and a data company, as of mid-September, 70,112 Russian soldiers have been killed. The real death toll is likely much higher. U.S. intelligence estimates place the number of Russian military deaths at over 200,000, with total casualties exceeding 600,000 when including the injured. The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ General Staff disclosed that since the start of the war, Russian casualties in Ukraine have reached 640,920, with more than 1,000 casualties daily.

The Russo-Ukraine war has dragged on for over two and a half years with no signs of ending, and peace plans remain elusive. The death toll continues to rise, and the costs are unbearable not only for Ukraine but also for Russia. Moreover, President Putin continues to resort to nuclear threats, challenging the limits of global peace. How should this protracted, unsustainable war come to an end, especially before the possible outbreak of nuclear warfare? This is a question that demands deep reflection—not only about the progression of the war but also about the paradigms and ethics of warfare.

In ancient times, military commanders led from the front lines, personally engaging in combat. In modern warfare, commanders hide in the rear, heavily protected, while ordinary soldiers become cannon fodder. It is only after the defeat that the instigators of war may face justice, but by then, countless lives have been lost, and the costs in terms of economy, society, and ecology are immeasurable. Even sentencing war criminals to death cannot make up for these losses.

Therefore, war ethics and war paradigms must be rewritten. With its enormous costs, the whole of society war model of modern warfare should be replaced by a new war paradigm, realizing a shift from modern to postmodern warfare. In today’s world, national sovereignty should not serve as a shield or refuge for a few dictators. Moreover, targeted decapitation can prevent more casualties among ordinary soldiers and innocent civilians, making it a more morally justifiable option. Undoubtedly, under specific conditions, “targeted eliminations” are not state terrorism but the best option to stop war and reduce losses. Israel has set a new benchmark for warfare, and now is the time to construct a postmodern war ethic.

Farewell to all-out war and granting legitimacy to targeted decapitation—this should become a consensus of our time. Rather than sacrificing thousands of ordinary soldiers, many of them young lives, and causing collateral damage to civilians, why not send one person to meet their maker?