Powerline notes the debate on whether it is better to kill or capture terrorist leaders. Leaving aside the issue that the Obama administration’s policy would be to treat a terrorist leader with kid gloves, the question is which strategy does the most to save innocent lives. Capturing terrorists in the wild entails obvious risks to the highly trained operatives tasked to do the job. Blasting them from on high, by remote control, is much less risky. Obviously, we lose any information the terrorist had about current plots. The terrorist lost any future plots, but that is a side benefit. unless you get a really smart terrorist like KSM. But the spectacular loss of a leader by a blast from the sky has got to give those charged with carrying out the plots second thoughts. “If they got Muhammad”, thinks Mohammed, “when are they going to get me?”. It’s also somewhat obvious that terrorist leaders are far happier to send off acolytes to die on their behalf than to die themselves. If we target the leaders, what are the next rung to think? “If I get to replace Mohammed, I’m going to join him in paradise real soon now”.

What would Michael Corleone do? Kill them. Over and over again.