The emerging operational environment of the United States military is characterized by a changing myriad of complex dimensions, the elements of which are often uncomfortably and in some cases drastically different from those encountered during the bipolar struggle of the Cold War. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States stands without peer in the realm of conventional militaries. US dominance in conventional military affairs creates an extreme asymmetric environment in which emerging adversaries perceive their only recourse to be an irrational form of unrestricted warfare. The challenge facing the US is how to psychologically prepare for and actively counter this extreme asymmetric threat. One of the most fundamental and possibly the most expedient way to counter this threat is through operational and strategic military leadership targeting. Unfortunately, military leadership targeting, often considered nothing more than assassination, is associated with various legal, moral, and political conventions that detract from its exploitation. This thesis will explore these conventions in order to answer the question: Is the physical destruction element of command and control warfare (C2W) an admissible shaping operation at either the theater strategic or operational levels of war? This monograph examines the circumstances that originally fostered the association of military leadership targeting with assassination, demonstrating the legality of the former and the illegality of the latter. The legal disassociation provides a basis for scrutinizing the moral arguments for and against military leadership targeting so as to understand the moral acceptability of putting into action such a policy. Moral reservations overcome, the monograph analyzes the domestic and international political impact of conducting military leadership targeting, demonstrating how a clearly stated military leadership targeting policy, implemented under strict guidelines, could provide the
