George F. Will: Presenting a case in support of targeted killings

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Dec. 10, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    Where it's necessary to use force, yes. But killing is still terrible, and our strikes often kill civilians.

    In calculating the costs vs. benefits, one of the costs is the further alienation of the local population and all the relatives and sympathizers of the victims. To achieve lasting peace, we must use prove both to the enemy and the rest of the world that we respect civilian life and do not disregard the humanity of all the other people sucked into the conflict.

    Any time we choose to use deadly force, we must follow the principle of minimum necessary force, lest we create more enemies than we destroy.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    You mean like --

    12 years of "fighting", 1.5 Million troops deployed, $2.6 Trillion spent, 6,000 U.S. causalites and nearly 300,000 Itaq and Afghanistan soliders and civilians killed.


    6 Navy Seals - and Osama Bin Laden is dead?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 9, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    I voted for Obama but I don't really like it. I don't trust that everyone killed is going to really be a terrorist. We've seen reporters killed by the Army thanks to leaks. Weddings and homes bombed, torture, illimination of habeus corpus - a right much older than the US.

    It all comes from this line of thinking that the rule of law and courts are too burdensome. It's a path to ruin. We won't be the only ones with such remote killing capacity for long.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    I have no problem with these killings. The part of me that was raised christian has some reservations; the prince of peace did not say 'cap thine enemy', but rather went on about turning the other cheek. Thou shalt not kill is fairly difinitive, too. But we've all managed to lawyer and lie our way around those edicts, although not everyone will admit it.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    Why do targeted killings need to be defended? Terrorists need to die, not the entire town or country that they live in.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    Re: ". . . Bill Clinton . . . launched cruise missiles against . . . bin Laden . . . . If the missiles had killed him, would that have been improper?"

    It's a little sill to engage this debate at a time when we are so clearly committed to the tactic, and when there is such overwhelming evidence, both of its efficacy in preventing death and injury to innocents, and of its covert acceptance by our Islamic allies.

    We might all wish for a day -- pending the establishment of world peace, of course -- when honorable warriors fight what battles may be, on terrain far removed from innocent civilians and their property.

    But we didn't get a vote in this shadow war's tactics. They were decided by a dishonorable enemy, committed to commission of internationally-recognized war crimes as its primary tactic.

    Our only alternative to targeted killing is total, abject surrender to evil incarnate and the loss of our freedom and civilization.

    And that's WAY too high a price to appease a tiny cabal of sophomoric liberal and academic elites, so laughably removed from reality.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 9, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    It's a new kind of war. Use it when needed to save American lives.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 9, 2012 5:42 a.m.

    "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 way.