Good idea; do some more

The Christian Science Monitor (a surprisingly good news venue) has the story, via The New York Times, of the military's hunt for our enemies:

A Times report Monday confirmed the Bush administration's dramatic expansion of the US military's authority to unilaterally hunt down and kill America's enemies across the globe. That new authority has been used to conduct nearly a dozen covert raids against suspected terrorist targets on foreign soil since 2004.
According to the Times, in the spring of 2004 the Bush administration signed the classified al-Qaeda Network Exord, which simplified the approval process for US covert military strikes against al-Qaeda and its allies. Before, only the CIA had blanket authorization to go after terrorists abroad and attaining approval for military strikes could take days. The paper described one such raid, in Pakistan. In 2006, for example, a Navy SEAL team raided a suspected militants' compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the CIA, according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on 26 October of this year, the military commandos acted in support of CIA-directed operations. But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive, or relied on insufficient evidence.
The article did not specify which foreign countries were covered by the executive order, but said no raids had been conducted in Iran. All strikes still require approval by the US civilian command, with exact criteria depending on the country. For covert attacks in Somalia, for example, only the defense secretary's approval is required, the report said, whereas attacks inside Syria or Pakistan need the president's sign-off.
Associated Press writer Pamela Hess notes that President-elect Barack Obama will inherit a series of executive orders, including the 2004 order reported by The New York Times, that give the Pentagon and US spy agencies enhanced authority. Mr. Obama has said he wants to reverse some of Bush's executive orders. But Ms. Hess and others argue that Obama is unlikely to put the US military on a tighter leash while pursuing al-Qaeda. Obama said in an August speech that he would target high-value terrorists in Pakistan without that government's permission. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and if President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said, referring to Pakistan's president. Musharraf since has been replaced by President Asif Ali Zardari.
The Times Online reports the forces fighting the US "secret war" include the Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Rangers, and a shadowy unit code-named Gray Fox. The article reports the number of US special forces at about 50,000, though less than 10,000 are "earmarked" for combat.
One of the most brazen attacks occurred in Madagascar in January 2007. US special operations forces from the hunter killer teams of Task Force 88 killed Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, one of Osama bin Laden's brothers-in-law, who has deep roots in al-Qaeda as a financier and facilitator. US intelligence tracked Khalifa for a long time (he lived in Saudi Arabia) and waited for the right moment to pounce. The Task Force made it look like Khalifa was killed in a robbery, but it was clear this was a hit.
Writing in Slate, Daniel Politi agrees that the report merely confirmed what was already evident. By late 2006, it was already clear that Special Forces had been carrying out secret missions in allied countries that were part of a classified program designed to help the United States track terrorist networks.
The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that some experts are concerned that clandestine US raids into sovereign territory may be counterproductive. But taking such actions in Pakistan, and now Syria, may involve high diplomatic risks and offer limited military gain, say experts outside the military. "It could be morally justifiable, legally justifiable, and strategically a mistake," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Rico says yes, but if they don't and we get another 9.11 out of it, whose ass will go in the sling?