Good news to see a leader get killed, but I can't help but feel that this still ends up being an ultimate win for those opposed to the U.S. We are spending vast sums of money to kill what - thousands of bad guys at best? Closer to hundreds perhaps? This is a classic case of the law of diminishing returns - where the costs go up exponentially for each additional bad guy we want to kill in the war on terror.

Maybe our best approach is to use the low tech ordinance and widen the area of operation. Or maybe we should do what we've done in the past and find the most reliable warlord we can and let him fight the war on his terms with the payoff being the dictator of Afghanistan. It's not the most palatable thing given our values, but it's effective and has been used before.