The New York Times has an editorial saying that killing Anwar al-Awlaki is a justified act of war. The editorial is worth reading saying in part
The United States did not claim the power to kill Mr. Awlaki because of his political views or because he was a mere member of a Qaeda affiliate against which Congress had authorized the use of force. It claimed the power to kill him, rather, because he was an operational leader of a Qaeda affiliate that had been involved in terrorist plots on American soil and because he was hiding in a country that lacked the capacity to arrest him and bring him to justice.
Of course the New York Times editorials usually say that what the president did was justified whether it is killing an American citizen we don’t like or invading Iraq. Anyway, it seems to me that Obama is doing a crackerjack job of what Bush the Younger bollixed. I wish that made it right but it doesn’t. We are fighting a war against a bunch of wackos that we should be rounding up and trying in court just like the Symbionese Liberation Army.
How much different the world would be if Bush had declared 9-11 the biggest criminal act in history and committed to tracking the criminals down and bring them to justice. Maybe we wouldn’t have fought two stupid, un-winnable, wars at the cost of bankrupting ourselves.
Instead, we have a war on terror. So maybe that is three, stupid, un-winnable wars.