David Brooks:

Yes.

Well, first, like the other 7.5 billion inhabitants of this Earth, I don't know either. But I do see it sort of on three levels, first, in the near term, the immediate term, which is, I think it's a reasonably good thing that somebody who was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East meet some justice.

I do think that's a good thing. The fact that there were rallies around the Middle East celebrating his death is a sign of the destruction he has wrought.

Then there is the middle term, and that's somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying, because we just — I don't think either Iraq or Iran or the U.S. want to have a war, but they have got to show they do something, and then we do something. And it could escalate into something.

I think it's extremely unlikely. But they play this game. I have been covering the Middle East for 30 years. And they play this game. And, sometimes, it goes fine and somebody just finally quiet — walks away, but, sometimes, it doesn't.

And so, in the middle term, I think we're overall right to be worried about that.

And then, in the long term, I think talent doesn't grow on trees, and this guy was their best guy. And so getting rid of your enemy's best guy probably in the long term yields some benefit.

And, second, his strategic — his basic signature move was to create militias around the Middle East, extragovernmental militias, in a sometimes hostile country. And to the extent that we can weaken that there should be militias all around the Middle East, then we have stabilized the Middle East long-term.

The middle term is what you have to worry about.