Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian military general who fought in the French Revolutionary Wars, is probably most remembered for saying that “politics is war by other means”. With this phrase, von Clausewitz explicitly suggests that when it comes to politics, the stakes are always high, and the consequences pretty damn severe.
The world of international politics was left stunned and shaken after a recent attempt on the life of former US President Donald Trump. Coincidentally, widespread outrage and concern have been rightfully sparked over the rising tide of political violence. As details of the attempt continue to emerge, it is essential to examine the incident within the broader context of an increasingly polarized political climate.
To put it in a more measured way, Trump is a highly controversial public figure, probably best known by most people for his outright crassness in handling important subject matters. Many see him as arrogant, others even see him as racist and hateful, earning him a healthy amount of vocal detractors. However, in spite of all this, his assassination attempt may rather be a symptom of a larger problem.
Throughout history, political violence has escalated globally, with numerous attacks on political leaders, activists, and ordinary citizens. In modern times, this disturbing trend has been fuelled more by divisive rhetoric, social media echo chambers, and a growing sense of political disenfranchisement.
In the United States, political violence seems to have intensified. The January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol and the recent attack on the FBI headquarters in Cincinnati are stark reminders of the dangers posed by extremist ideologies and the willingness of some individuals to resort to violence to establish their political arguments or goals.
The attempt to assassinate Trump occurred near President Trump’s podium location during the rally at Butler, Pennsylvania, with shots fired from the “three o’clock” position, originating from the right side, according to some sources. Secret Service counter-assault snipers promptly responded, engaging the suspect, who was found on a rooftop.
Serious concerns were raised about the security perimeter’s size and effectiveness, as well as the measures in place to secure the American Glass Research building. Questions remain regarding how the suspect gained access to the rooftop.
In response, US President Joe Biden instructed Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to conduct a comprehensive review of all security measures for the Republican National Convention.
While the motivations behind the attack are still unclear, there’s no better time to acknowledge that political leaders are increasingly vulnerable to violence by virtue of their public image. This reality underscores the need for effective security measures to protect those in public office and ensure the stability of democratic institutions.
Moreover, it highlights the imperative to address the root causes of political violence, including social media misinformation, political polarization, and economic inequality.
Since ancient times to modern days, the removal of key figures has been a tool employed by individuals, groups, and governments to achieve their goals. One of the earliest recorded political assassinations was that of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. A group of senators, led by Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, conspired against Caesar, fearing his growing power and perceived threat to the Roman Republic. Caesar’s death led to a power struggle, ultimately resulting in the rise of the Roman Empire under his adopted son, Octavian (later known as Augustus).
Another significant political assassination in history was that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in 1914. Gavrilo Princip, a young Bosnian Serb nationalist, carried out the attack in Sarajevo, Bosnia. This event triggered a chain reaction of diplomatic crises and military mobilizations that eventually led to the outbreak of World War I.
In the United States, two of the most infamous political assassinations were those of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1963 and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) in 1968. Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively, were the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. The JFK assassination led to widespread conspiracy theories, while RFK’s death which occurred during his presidential campaign dealt a devastating blow to the nation.
Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian independence activist and leader, was assassinated in 1948 by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance inspired movements worldwide, and his death was a loss for humanity. His legacy continues to inspire generations, and his impact on Indian history is immeasurable.
Quite unfortunately, political assassinations have continued to occur in modern times. Recent examples include the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in 2015 and the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani activist for girls’ education, in 2012.
Just two years ago, Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan and a serving member of the Japanese House of Representatives, was shot to death by 41-year-old Tetsuya Yamagami with an improvised firearm while speaking at a political event outside Yamato-Saidaiji Station in Nara City, Nara Prefecture. These incidents serve as sobering reminders of the ongoing risk of political engagements.
The honest truth is that, from a holistic perspective, no single factor can be solely blamed for any of the aforementioned events. Usually, a tangled web of circumstances often converge to lead to such attempts, one of which includes political ideology.
Extremist groups will always view dissenting voices as symbols of an opposing ideology, and therefore, obstacles to achieving their political goals, making them targets for offensive moves or behaviours. Furthermore, when an individual harbours deep-seated resentment towards a political figure, often stemming from perceived injustices or past traumas, this emotional fuel can ignite a desire for revenge, leading to devastating actions.
Sometimes, the pursuit of power and control also breeds a form of ruthless pragmatism that can lead to a culture of violence and fear, since political opponents may actively seek to sabotage each other by any means necessary. To preserve economic interests, those with significant financial stakes in political outcomes may resort to violence to protect or advance their interests. In light of the foregoing, the need to ensure the safety of major political actors cannot be underemphasized.
With regards to the Trump incident, US authorities apparently obtained intelligence on a plot by Iran to assassinate former President Trump, leading to increased security measures by the Secret Service which, understandably, begs to question how there were security lapses at the event. Although, the sources emphasized that there is no indication that Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old who attempted to kill Trump, was connected to the Iranian plot, suggesting that the assassination attempt may have been a separate incident.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has a long history of involvement in protecting US political leaders, dating back to the 1960s. Initially, their role was focused on providing intelligence to the Secret Service, responsible for safeguarding the President and his family. However, over time the CIA’s responsibilities have expanded to include threat assessments, surveillance, and countermeasures to prevent assassinations and political violence.
Several high-profile assassination attempts have been foiled in the past, thanks to the CIA. In the 1980s, they worked closely with the Secret Service to thwart a plot by the Medellín cartel to assassinate President Reagan. More recently, the CIA helped prevent a planned attack on President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines.
Beyond reacting to specific threats and dangers, the CIA has also taken a proactive approach to preventing political violence. This includes monitoring and analyzing intelligence related to domestic and international terrorist organizations, as well as identifying potential lone-wolf attackers. By staying one step ahead of these threats, the CIA aims to prevent violent acts from occurring in the first place.
However, despite their successes, the CIA’s methods and effectiveness in protecting US political leaders have faced numerous critiques and controversies. Some argue that the agency’s reliance on surveillance and intelligence gathering infringes on civil liberties, while others question the CIA’s ability to prevent attacks without infringing on free speech and assembly.
Critics have also accused the CIA of engaging in racial and ethnic profiling, targeting certain communities and individuals based on their background rather than actual threats. This approach has led to allegations of discrimination and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Increasing reliance on technology by the agency, including artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, has also raised concerns about overlooking the importance of human intelligence and on-the-ground analysis. Adding to the fact that with much of their work being classified, it can be difficult to assess the effectiveness of their methods and the extent to which they respect civil liberties.
There is very obviously a fine line between preventing violence and respecting the rights of citizens, all while maintaining the trust of the public. As the threat landscape continues to evolve, the CIA’s role in protecting US political leaders will definitely need to adapt.
