The lead article in today’s New York Times, “C.I.A. Strike Kills U.S.-Born Militant in a Car in Yemen,” portrays another successful strike by the Obama administration against Al Qaeda. This time the victim was a fiery cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who started preaching in mosques in the United States while he was in college. Born to two Yemeni parents, he returned to the country of his ancestry in 2004 to begin preaching fiery sermons against the United States.

President Obama called him head of external operations for AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), an affiliate of Al Qaeda that intelligence officials judged more potent than the parent organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan. AQAP and Mr. Awlaki were responsible for the attempted Christmas-Day bombing and inspired both the Fort Hood and Times Square incidents.

Some on the far left questioned whether Mr. Awlaki should have been afforded a trial since he was an American citizen, but he declared himself an enemy combatant and specifically forswore any allegiance to the United States in a very public manner. In addition, he was actively involved in plotting attacks against the United States.

So President Obama has chalked up another victory against a senior Al Qaeda figure, and even the Republicans have given him credit for it.

The lead article in The New York Times today, “At White House, Weighing Limits of Terror Fight,” describes a legal battle that could have grave implications for our country’s future, both in the extent of our fight against Al Qaeda and the type of nation we become, based on the values we uphold.

The gist of contention involves the limits of U.S. force against those that would harm us. Can we kill them anywhere in the world, either through drone attacks, cruise missiles or commando raids, or must we have some kind of proof, hold a trial, etc. And should the use of lethal force be limited to high-value targets such as Osama bin Laden or apply to all the “foot soldiers” of Al Qaeda, in whatever splintered network they belong to?

As the beacon of so many values neglected in the world, the United States does have a responsibility to lean over backwards to apply them even when it is difficult or potentially dangerous. We can not operate by the same methods as those who oppose us, who show no limit to their treacherousness or cold-blooded killing. Yes, we need to be vigilant, but we must be sensitive to the countries we are operating in, to show respect for their sovereignty and, hopefully, coordinate with them to capture these individuals and render them ineffective.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Saying U.S. Achieves Goals, Obama Speeds Pullout from Afghanistan,” describes President Obama’s cogent argument in his 15-minute speech last night from the Oval Office, detailing why he will reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan by 10,000 by the end of the year and another 20,000 by the end of next summer.

The success of targeted operations, such as the one that killed Osama bin Laden, and the extensive attacks by unmanned drones have Al Qaeda on the run. Approximately 20 of the top 30 Al Qaeda leaders have been taken out in the last year and a half, and the rest are pinned down by continuing antiterrorism operations.

In addition, the Afghan troops are about as trained as they are going to be pending an American pullout so it no longer makes sense to continue with counterinsurgency against the Taliban. The reasons for American entry in the region have largely been satisfied.

Kudos to President Obama for his guts in standing up to the military establishment so we can use the much needed money for Afghanistan here at home. With an increasing national debt, the $120 billion spent this year in Afghanistan, and more than $1 trillion on Arab wars in the past decade, can be put to much better use.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Steeper Pullout Raised as Option for Afghanistan,” details a logical reconsideration of policy by President Obama as the day draws near to determine how many troops will be pulled out from Afghanistan.

With a coming meeting of the National Security Council to make this decision, the familiar battle line between Vice President Biden on one side and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plus Defense Secretary Gates on the other will be reprised. However, other members of the President’s security advisors will change with the non-hawk Thomas Donilon appointed as head of the National Security Council and Leon Panetta, who favors unmanned drone attacks, moving over to Defense Secretary with the coming departure of Mr. Gates.

Undeniably, the killing of Osama bin Laden will play a key role in the discussions. In addition to achieving this major foreign policy goal, the President has many other Al Qaeda operatives on the run thanks to the treasure trove of information found at the Bin Laden compound.

And it’s important to also note that the drawdown concerns only the surge troops, some 30,000 military men, sent in addition to the force already there. The rest of the force will not be affected until the timetable for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2014 is considered.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Bigger Raid Unit Braced for Fight with Pakistanis,” provides some excellent reporting as The Times continues to flush out the story with further details. Apparently, the President had prepared for more contingencies than previously revealed included a possible firefight with Pakistan’s police and/or military and the need to get out of the country at all costs to avoid a fight over jurisdiction.

The President directed that two helicopters with additional troops wait at the edge of the Afghan border, about 90 minutes away, in case the troops were unable to avoid a conflict with Pakistani forces, a distinct possibility and one the Seals were commanded to avoid, if at all possible. In addition, plans were prepared for senior military officials to call their Pakistani counterparts for the same reason. One of these additional helicopters proved essential when its counterpart crashed into the compound.

In addition to the extra helicopters, the United States also used surveillance and monitoring aircraft to determine when the Pakistani forces were finally going to respond to the noises coming from the compound. This component of the plan helped the Seals stay at the compound as long as possible to gather computer hard drives and other intelligence, a facet of the plan that may become almost as important in the fight against Al Qaeda as the killing of Osama bin Laden himself.

And finally, the President also directed the formation of two separate teams for interrogating or burying Bin Laden, the latter also on a Navy ship to avoid the aforementioned problem with jurisdiction.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Data from Raid Shows Bin Laden Plotted Attacks,” shows that his role in controlling the Al Qaeda network differed significantly from the commonly held viewpoint. That myth, that Osama bin Laden was living in a cave somewhere and had degenerated largely into a figurehead, with no real power, has now been shown to be false.

Not only was he living in a $1 million home, a complex in a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, but, according to the documents and computer hard drives secured in Monday’s raid by the Navy Seals, he was actively plotting the next major Al Qaeda plot against our nation.

Why did our government put out the rumor that he was living in a case? One, in my opinion, to justify or rationalize their impotence, largely the Bush administration’s impotence, in tracking him down and his remaining at large for almost a decade. Secondly, to avoid a sense of panic or concern among the American people and to let us continue our lives normally without generating a flow of false alerts burdening government authorities.

Now, the government says Osama bin Laden was actively plotting against us but states that the plans were mainly “aspirational.” We should disbelieve this characterization for the same reason. The next plot: the “aspirational” theme was blowing up a train on a bridge by tampering with the tracks, according to the treasure trove of documents found at the compound. I don’t know about you, but I would change my commuting habits.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “New U.S. Account in Bin Laden Raid: He was Unarmed,” describes some modifications in the account of the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of a 79-member Navy Seals team. Apparently, the woman in the room where he was killed was not used as a human shield, but she rushed the incoming Americans as they came in and was shot in the leg. Then, Osama bin Laden was shot to death though he was unarmed.

Though someone at the United Nations asked for an explanation, according to the rules of engagement, the Americans were totally justified in using lethal force. It was dark; they had just completed a fierce firefight, and there was a chaotic situation in the room. The Seals were also wearing night goggles that limited their visibility. According to outside experts, if Bin Laden was trying to surrender or was lying unconscious on the floor, that would raise questions, but with the woman rushing the American forces and the possibility of Bin Laden wearing an explosive vest, their action was justified.

The divergent U.S. accounts were described as a result of the 24-hour news cycle and the need to get the story out to the public quickly. Apparently, the modifications came to light after the Seals team was debriefed.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden,” provides excellent reporting about the details behind President Obama’s stunning operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.

The big break came when the NSA identified the full name of Bin Laden’s courier and then tracked him back to the compound in Abbottabad, a suburb just 35 miles out of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Satellite images were used to establish the pattern of life at the compound, and it was determined that there was no phone or Internet connection, and the inhabitants burned their own trash.

Faced with the choice of bombing the compound to smithereens, with the resultant collateral damage and inability to definitively identify the body, and the more daring option of going in with Special Operations forces, President Obama was willing to take a chance to ensure we put this chapter in our history behind us.

Meanwhile, despite token acknowledgements by Republicans, most seem more comfortable in praising George W. Bush for the achievement, a continual failure by this Party to deal with reality. In fact, while Republicans were obsessing with President Obama’s birth certificate, he was engaged in one of the most high drama operations of our time. And succeeding at it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Unrest in Yemen Seen as Opening to Qaeda Branch,” depicts a potentially lethal development for the United States. The President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has virtually halted counterterrorism operations in his struggle to stay in power.

Mr. Saleh had previously worked with the United States and his own security forces but has now recalled nearly everyone to help prop up his government in the face of continuing demonstrations. As a result, the U.S. is quietly trying to ease him from power while ensuring that what comes next isn’t worse.

Al Qaeda has developed safe havens in the country primarily in the Shabwa and Abyan provinces in the southeast, and their fighters are streaming into Yemen from Pakistan and other hot spots. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the name for the Yemeni branch, is already responsible for the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the failed effort with explosive-packed printer cartridges, and now intelligence agencies are picking up increased “threat chatter” aimed at the United States and Europe.

Another key figure in Yemen, the American born Anwar al-Awlaki, is also a threat through the propaganda he spews, and must be indulging in the current situation to rally Al Qaeda as well.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Crucial,” describes a retreat by U.S. forces that the Taliban will tout as a great victory.

More than 103 U.S. troops have died protecting the Pech Valley in eastern Afghanistan, and the military has decided to withdraw from the area “to better protect Afghan civilians in the cities.” They are predictably calling the move a “redeployment.”

However, as the article notes, it was the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the Pech Valley that was the immediate precursor to their defeat, and though one hopes the same situation will not be true for the United States, it’s not as if our war effort is undergoing any stunning successes.

The article also notes that this decision will create “reverse safe havens” for Al Qaeda, Taliban and other militant forces. Just as Pakistan has served as a safe haven from pursuing U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Pech Valley may serve as a safe haven from pursuing Pakistani Army forces. I’m not a military man, but it seems like the safe havens are multiplying, definitely not a good sign.

It is possible that Afghan forces alone will be able to maintain security in the Pech Valley, but one Afghan troop described it as “a suicide mission.”