There has been a rather big hue and cry lately over the CIA’s intent to target known terrorist leaders for assassination. Naturally, there are legion who have voiced dismay over the revelations, including many in the historically tight-lipped Democrat Congress, who were upset because they weren’t told for fear they would leak it. In addition to Congress, CIA Director Leon Panetta was upset because the several fits and starts from the bipolar nature of an infection called Political Correctness meant that there was not much there in terms of dead high-value targets for which he could take credit. Fortunately for Mr. Panetta, just like President Obama on the economy, has only inherited the problem.

Presumably other countries as well were upset because their states of affairs have been in certain respects even more dysfunctional. It would then stand to reason that such a move by the CIA might lay bare something embarrassingly amiss among all concerned politically. After all, how do you get to the point where dangerous terrorist leaders are moving around freely inside your country eight years after 9/11 unless something is already rather wrong? Interestingly, one thing that doesn’t appear broken this time is the CIA, but of course all of that is about to change. Thus, in the spirit of the Rockefeller Commission, Langley’s terrorist assassination program is history.

Now begins, of course, the fun part. Rockefeller Commission Two, some may call it. The endless array of committee meetings and investigations, faux outrage, and political grandstanding will provide us the standard fare of showmanship at the expense of the national interest. Its effect will go far beyond the scope of the current matter of terrorist assassinations into hobbling the agency’s very purpose. This is in part the not so novel far-left anti-defense mentality but also partly Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s personal crusade to exact revenge since she is still around to do so after it was shown that she had lied about being briefed on water boarding while serving – inexplicably – on the House Intelligence Committee a few years ago. 

One has to wonder how far we’ve come since 9/11 that we no longer seek to kill the leaders of those who are at war with us; that we have no interest in dealing soundly with operatives of a terrorist organization violating every known international law and agreement on the conduct of warfare known to man, but instead whimper over possibly hurting feelings. After all, what should happen if we managed to scare them? That would be so unkind, you know. If we follow what some liberal academics suggest, we should really be apologizing for whatever great offense allegedly set the terrorists off on 9/11 and all those times before in the first place.

There is something to be said for frightening the enemy who violates all rules of human decency so badly that he would think twice about committing any future acts; that every night and day he looks over his shoulder wondering whether that day will be his last – whether he has already been found out and will be dealt with at the leisure of someone whose face he may never see. Contrary to what many of the agonizingly nervous hand-wringers among us who have utterly misplaced their sympathies pontificate daily, war criminals like those in al Qaeda should themselves be terrorized, for that is what they are and it is part of what gets them to stop.

History has already judged it sensible to shoot on sight members of the post-War German Werewolf insurgency in the late 1940s. The policy was part of a wider one that helped bring an end to German resistance by 1947. It is equally sensible to have a covert wet works program for those very special cases even more dangerous who wish not only to violate every international norm in attacking uniformed servicemen in areas of conflict while they themselves are dressed as civilians, but by attacking innocent civilians – by the thousands – wantonly. I suppose one might argue that the value of a civilian’s life should be weighed against the complexities or post-modern multipolar nuance, but this is precisely how we win the battle and lose the war.