The New Normal of Killing

Donald Trump stood before Congress during the State of the Union and spoke with audible pride about what he described as a spectacular display of American power. One of the most dangerous cartel bosses had been eliminated. In January, he said, one of the most complex operations in military history had been carried out. Foreign leaders had called to say how impressive it was. He was referring to the abduction of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. The applause was not for diplomacy or negotiations, but for the precision strike.

Since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, a practice has taken hold that is rarely named openly anymore. Anwar al Awlaki followed in September 2011. Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán in January 2016. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in October 2019. Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. Ayman al Zawahiri in July 2022. Ismail Haniyeh in July 2024. Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024. Yahya Sinwar in October 2024. Ahmed al Rahawi in August 2025. Nicolás Maduro was brought from Venezuela to the United States in January 2026 through a military operation of questionable standing under international law. The list is long, it is getting longer, and it stands for a method that is becoming technically easier all the time.

What was celebrated here is the state’s ability to locate and eliminate a person in real time. Not a single analyst in front of a screen makes the decision, but a vast apparatus of intelligence agencies, cyber units, planners, target analysts, drone pilots and special forces. Phones, cars, surveillance cameras, social networks - all of it provides data. That data is analyzed, linked and accelerated. In the end, there is a coordinate. And at that coordinate, force is waiting.

Trump loves this efficiency. It appears clean, fast, successful. Like an order delivered the same day. A push of a button, a result. The question of what remains afterward recedes into the background. Joseph Humire, now acting deputy secretary of defense, has himself told Congress that cartels no longer function according to the classic leader model. Removing the head often leads to fragmentation, not dissolution. That is exactly what the so called decapitation strategy showed in Mexico. That is exactly what the fight against al Qaeda showed, from which new groups emerged.

And yet these operations generate images of strength. Presidents benefit from them. Barack Obama was celebrated after the killing of bin Laden as if he had personally flown the mission, felt as a success that looks like foreign policy. It suggests control in a world that is barely controllable. But what changes in the long term? The drug war is not over. Terror does not disappear. The conflict with Iran spans generations. Russia continues to advance. Every killed opponent is replaced by a new one or by a network that is less tangible.

The technical capability continues to grow. China, too, is probing leadership structures in Taiwan. Other states are learning how to turn data into target coordinates. The global race for precision strikes has begun, and it will not end with one administration. Billions flow into this infrastructure. Billions that do not go into hospitals, schools or transportation systems. It sounds like an old debate, but it is a real prioritization. We are building a machine that can kill in seconds. Whether we are equally determined to improve lives is another question.

The applause in Congress was for efficiency. The real question is whether efficiency alone can be the standard. When the rapid elimination of opponents becomes routine, the benchmark for politics shifts. And at some point, one may realize that one has become very good at killing - and hardly better at solving problems.