Today's Kausfiles suggests that last night's missile attack attempting to "decapitate" the Iraqi government might not have been in our best interests:

I suppose it would be good to kill Saddam Hussein with the opening shot of the war. But it's not hard to imagine circumstances in which it would not be good -- i.e. if a new strongman emerged who claimed to repudiate Saddam, offered up some prominent Baathists, and pledged to really open up Iraq to U.N. inspectors. Would we press an attack then? What if the new leader actually turned over a whole bunch of chemical and biological weapons Saddam had been hiding? It might be very difficult to justify continuing an invasion in those circumstances -- and yet the job would once again be left half-done, or three-quarters done. ... Could we trust the new government? ... We might end up with the opprobrium of the world, but no crowds cheering us as liberators, no "prosperous and free" Iraq and no guarantee of disarmament