Apparently, a number of people now think more highly of Bush and his war because Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed. What an absurd conclusion: one guy’s dead, so now everything’s all better? Well: if it was that simple, why didn’t they save all the trouble and effort of the war and just try to kill him in the first place?
Seriously: while I certainly don’t countenance assassination, I truly do not understand the moral calculus that condones the terrors of war, with its inevitable killings of innocent civilians who play no role in whatever offense drives the war, but which prohibits the targeted killing of a leader who actually bears some responsibility for that offense. That makes no sense. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.