My strong suspicion is that such temporal, tactical gains produce far more strategic downside than upside on today's global "battlefield." Bragging about these hits to show how we are being effective is what is causing the strategic downside.

We need to just shut up, and be quiet professionals. Do the job and let those who choose to speculate speculate, but the ones we're really trying to influence know exactly what happened.

We are slipping into the same trap with unmanned aircraft and their missiles that we fell into with our bombers and guided munitions. Some news is best delivered in person. Short, violent raids with no post-op clamoring for glory will be less likely to produce the strategic downside, and probably be far more respected by those we target and thereby produce better results.
This is why this news is odd, and makes me wonder what they are playing at. Why admit that he was killed? Why not revert to the practice of claiming civilian deaths, with the typical lack of proof? Letting on that a leader was killed in such an attack doesn't make much sense, based on what little has been provided so far.