As a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer specializing in Russia, I often am asked why the United States doesn’t just take out Vladimir Putin.
Russia’s president is clearly a bad dude. So far, in his barbaric 10-month war against Ukraine, Putin’s forces have bombed maternity wards, tortured civilians and abducted their children, shipping them to Russia by force. His missiles have pounded vital infrastructure, leaving Ukrainians without electricity or drinking water amid freezing winter temperatures.
His illegal invasion has also led to a global energy crisis and exacerbated skyrocketing inflation across the West. US leaders watch the conflict nervously, worried it could spiral into World War III.
For many, getting rid of Putin seems like an easy fix. But while the United States maintains a doctrine — albeit a secret one — that permits, in exceptional cases, targeted killings of foreigners, Washington will almost certainly not order the assassination of Russia’s strongman. Here are three reasons why.
First, the US Constitution prohibits the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones unless it is used against an individual who presents a concrete, imminent threat of grave harm to the United States and is participating in hostilities against the homeland — and only as a last resort. Putin does not meet this requirement.
It is true that the Central Intelligence Agency has targeted foreign leaders for death in the past. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, the CIA maintained a top-secret counter-terrorism assassination program against high value targets such as al Qaeda commanders. Authorized by former President George W. Bush, this covert mission was performed by private paramilitary contractor firms that employ ex-Special Forces operatives.
