Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
By this statement Wilf, are you saying that going after leadership is always worth the squeeze, even if it turns out to not be highly effective?
How will you know? What evidence is there to date, that it is counter-productive? I said not "highly effective."
That they get replaced is not a reason not to do it.
My sole point is that killing enemy leaders, usually makes life more difficult for the enemy.

At what point is a leader's death worth 1, 10, 100 civilian casualties? Not trying to apples and orange this issue, but this does go back to a potential collateral damage issue that I think always needs to be thought of.
Of course. You have to weigh the political objective/benefit, against the down side. Your never killing these folks for fun. Your killing them to advance your policy and make their life more difficult. How many civilians is Osama Bin Laden worth? I really don't know, but hopefully someone does.