CREDIT TO THE WASHINGTON POST – AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  We've written here before about how the Washington Post's editorial page shines in comparison to that of the dreary, propagandistic New York Times.  The Post is a liberal paper and I often disagree with its editorials.  But they are well written, thoughtful, and sane.  And the Post understands that liberalism doesn't have to mean a knee-jerk, or just jerk, reaction to any military operation.

In the last few days, following the bin Laden raid, we've seen the political left, especially in Europe, reorganize again, as it reorganizes after every major event, and go back to its standard leftist lines and sneering anti-Americanism.  The usual cast of Europeans and left-leaning Brits, now including the Archbishop of Cantebury, has taken to expressing anguish over the legality and morality of the raid.  We are being lectured by our self-proclaimed superiors. 

The Washington Post, to its enormous credit, will have none of it, as the paper makes clear in a superb editorial published this morning:

SOME ARE questioning the legality of the raid in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Was it lawful for a team of Navy SEALs to launch a mission in Abbottabad without permission from Pakistani leaders? Did they comply with international strictures when they killed the al-Qaeda leader rather than capturing him and bringing him before a court of law?

In a word: yes.

Right on, WaPo.  For liberals, you've got guts.

Absent a surrender, there is no question that U.S. forces would have been entitled to shoot him on sight had they encountered him on an Afghan battlefield. But that is not where the terrorist leader spent his time. After lengthy and intricate intelligence-gathering, the Obama administration tracked him to a heavily secured mansion in a city outside Islamabad populated by military officers and the country’s elite military academy. With suspicions high that Osama bin Laden enjoyed some semblance of official protection, the Obama administration rightly decided to proceed without notifying Pakistan.

Correct again.

Much has been made of the disclosure that Osama bin Laden was unarmed, but this, too, is irrelevant in determining whether the operation was lawful. The SEALs entered the compound on a war footing, in the middle of the night, prepared to encounter hostile fire in what they believed to be the enemy leader’s hideout. They reported that they became embroiled in a firefight once inside; they had no way of knowing whether Osama bin Laden himself was armed. Even if he had signaled surrender, there is no reason to believe that danger had evaporated.

That is pure common sense, often lacking in the "international law" experts who are peppering the pages of newspapers with their learned opinions.

It is easy in the light of day to second-guess decisions made in the heat of war. It is particularly easy for those who refuse to acknowledge that war in the first place. Based on information released by the administration, the covert military operation that brought down the most wanted terrorist in the world appears to have been gutsy and well executed. It was also lawful.

COMMENT:  Cheers to the Washington Post, whose editorial will probably produce severe biological trauma in faculty lounges throughout the nation, and cafes where Euro types meet.  Paramedics are standing by.  Have insurance cards ready. 

The conflict with terror organizations is ongoing.  Bin laden was a major soldier in that conflict.  He was a military planner, and a legitimate target.

We did good.

May 5, 2011