On October 15, a US airstrike in Syria killed Al Quaeda cell leader Sanafi al-Nasr. He was the highest-ranking leader of the Khorasan Group (learn more about them here: BBC Khorasan Group) which had been plotting attacks against the United States and Europe. He was also experienced in retrieving money and fighters for Al Qaeda.
American officials describe the operation as a drone strike which was used to prevent confrontation with Russian planes. The Pentagon claims that Al-Nasr is the fifth Khorasan leader to be killed by the US in four months. The US believes that the Khorasan group is the most capable of hurting American civilians and should be most intently focused on in order to prevent possible terrorist attacks.
People are debating about the effectiveness of the "decapitation strategy" which is when a terrorist group's leaders are killed. Some believe that by causing the fear of strikes, these terrorist groups will not meet as often or as openly and therefore make it harder to find them. They also believe that the decapitation approach causes terrorist group's to prepare for strikes and thus prepare deputies to succeed the deaths of their leaders. This makes the airstrikes rather ineffective.
How should the US be attacking these terrorist groups? Are airstrikes/decapitation strategy the most effective way of doing so? Does it make sense to fight violence with violence, and when does this cycle end? Should the US government heighten national security? Should there be something like the War Powers Act for these attacks that aren't considered war (or should the War Powers Act apply to this)? Ever since 9/11, how has the amount of federal government control changed and developed?
Wall Street Journal