The central problem with American so-called policy is that it has no discernible purpose (well, unless you go with the idea that it is expressly designed to make money for global capitalists, which is possible, but rather broad). Instead, the USA lurches from reaction to reaction, with the occasional ill-conceived pro-active SNAFU thrown in for good measure.
Killing any particular individual is only useful to the extent that that death moves you towards your goals. If you don’t have any real goals, assassination can’t be useful, period. And even if you do have some, perhaps nebulous, goals like “reduce terrorism,” or something, killing someone will only advance those goals in very very specific circumstances, like when someone has such specific knowledge or charisma or capabilities that their absence will materially diminish the other side’s ability or will. And even then, that gets really iffy, because someone that important sometimes becomes more, not less, effective as a martyr.
Of course, there are other reasons for assassination of foreign targets–revenge, causing chaos, etc.–but while perhaps clear these reasons usually do not advance any particularly good goal, nor are they easy or practical to fit into any rational policy program.
So, assassinating Soleimani has to be seen in the context of the question, why? What does it gain us? And by why and what, I mean beyond some juvenile and vindictive sort of revengeful glee. From cold, hard, policy perspectives, what does it get us? There may be some gains, sure, but I do not think that any of them add up to a net positive in the context of actually effecting real change (that is, making progress towards real policy goals).
Because, we have no policy, and hence, no goals.
