As for the main thesis, history is littered with great and charismatic leaders who were ultimately succeeded by lesser luminaries (often their own children) who were not nearly as successful. If that’s the kind of guy you’ve got at the top, then there’s little question that it’s worth offing him.

What’s not so clear is the value in wasting lieutenants. Their deaths become recruiting fodder, to be used by the leaders who still lead.

In the case of the US in Iraq, many have noted that they seem to have taken out the #3 bad-guy more than a few times. That’s either wishful thinking on the part of US spin-doctors, or testimony that for every #3 wiped out, a new one gets promoted in short order.

In the IDF’s case, they don’t seem to assign specific ranks to their targets, but we inevitably learn that the target has killed or is about to kill. But the IDF doesn’t always claim that the dead man held a leadership position.

Sometime last summer, it seemed that the sheer number of IDF assassinations had taken its toll. It seemed there was almost no Hamas leadership left. But at this point it’s obvious that the snake has regrown a head. It remains to be seen whether or not it’s as “effective” terror-wise. Let’s hope not.

Has Abu Jihad managed to plan and execute any terror attacks since being found with 170 bullet holes in his body?

because the Arab world has continued “conscripting” homicide bombers and others to execute their terror campaign.

The thing was to have hit Tunisia for for supplying board and lodging.

http://www.meforum.org/article/515

(Gal Luft analyses the risks and benefits, successes and failures of targeted killing (and sees more benefits than risks))

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2427

(Dichter and Ross discuss the practical, military and political considerations of targeted killing; Yaalon describes the ethical concerns that Israel also weighs.)

I think the AP and their pet sources are trying to liken warfare against terrorists to the “martyr” syndrome in which a movement gets stronger after some act of violence is perpetrated against its leaders or some of its faithful.

What they’re failing to point out is that although terrorists are, for the most part, embedded in religious movements, the martyr syndrome seems to be most likely to occur when a PEACEFUL movement is attacked. Terrorists aren’t peaceful. They’re at war. And as with ANY war, if you can kill enough enemy officers, the troops on the line will eventually fall into disarray and you can defeat them in detail.

The AP also cites some FAILED decapitations, and tries to use them as evidence. The most recent strike in Pakistan is a great example of what happens when you miss, and when the collateral damage is high — that’s NOT what happened when Israel surgically removed Abu Jihad from his organization.

–Howard