After the terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, the Bill Clinton administration launched cruise missiles against suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan, hoping bin Laden was there. If the missiles had killed him, would this have been improper? In March 2003, in the hours before the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush administration, thinking it knew where Saddam Hussein was, launched a cruise missile strike against one of his compounds. Was it wrong to try to economize violence by decapitating his regime? Would it have been morally preferable to attempt this by targeting, with heavy bombing, not a person but his neighborhood? Surely not.
George Will's email address is georgewill@washpost.com.
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- In our opinion: Scouting success will come...
- Top scandals and controversies of each United...
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus vote
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation of...
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Lois M. Collins: Kids' summer 'bucket list'...
- Top scandals and controversies of each US...
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- Letters: No welfare, ever
66 - Letter: The real death panel:...
30 - My view: Why moderates lost the caucus...
30 - Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
26 - In our opinion: Big screen exploitation...
25 - Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in...
20 - Charles Krauthammer: Americans deserve...
17 - Michael Gerson: As government's...
15



"Targeted killings" should be our method of choice when our problem is an individual or a small group.
Thank you, Obama, for this common sense approach.
Too bad we did not have the wisdom to take our Saddam Hussein this
It's a new kind of war. Use it when needed to save American lives.
Why do targeted killings need to be defended? Terrorists need to die, not the entire town or country that they live in.