Is there anything to learn from the episode of killing Saddam's sons?
Suppose we get good intelligence and surround Saddam, just the way (in non-tinfoil-hat mode) we did his sons.
What should the rules of engagement be?
In particular, what should the goals of the operation be? Killing, or capture?
My view: Our national interest, and the interests of the Iraqi people, would best be served by capturing Saddam, doing the perp walk, and handing him over to the Hague for trial before the war crimes tribunal. The rules of engagement should be structured to optimize for this outcome.
UPDATE
Even neo-con tool Chalabi agrees:
''I think it is much better for the Iraqi people and for the world for Saddam to be caught alive and put on trial for the crimes he has committed against the people of Iraq, against neighbors of Iraq and against the world,'' he told the BBC.
And the flak this blog took, from Tacitus and others less nuanced in their modes of expression, for expressing a common-sense view that is now making its way toward becoming the CW ... Sigh ...
Ritual disclaimer and troll prophylactic. Saddam is evil. So were his sons.