My next column for The Daily is all about the killing of OBL. I dwell on the implications for our relationship with Pakistan.

For now, I have a lot of scattered thoughts. I’m doing my best to stay dispassionate. It’s not easy.

Steve Coll has written an analysis that included at least one insight that will — how do I put this politely? — raise a lot of questions:

The initial circumstantial evidence suggests that the opposite is more likely—that bin Laden was effectively being housed under Pakistani state control. Pakistan will deny this, it seems safe to predict, and perhaps no convincing evidence will ever surface to prove the case. If I were a prosecutor at the United States Department of Justice, however, I would be tempted to call a grand jury. Who owned the land on which the house was constructed? How was the land acquired, and from whom? Who designed the house, which seems to have been purpose-built to secure bin Laden? Who was the general contractor? Who installed the security systems? Who worked there? Are there witnesses who will now testify as to who visited the house, how often, and for what purpose? These questions are not relevant only to the full realization of justice for the victims of September 11th. They are also relevant to the victims of terrorist attacks conducted or inspired by bin Laden while he lived in the house, and these include many Pakistanis, as well as Afghans, Indians, Jordanians, and Britons. They are rightly subjects of American criminal law.

If you were part of the Pakistani military elite, would you (a) reveal the location of Bin Laden or would you (b) take part in a conspiracy to hide him in an effort to squeeze more money out of American taxpayers to fuel your military machine, which is devoted first and foremost to maintaining Pakistan’s nuclear capability and waging “irregular warfare” against India?

Aiding the government in Afghanistan in its efforts to resist the Taliban insurgency is a good and noble thing to do. But it requires the cooperation of Pakistan. We can’t coerce or bribe Pakistan into helping us at a price that we are or should be willing to pay. Rest assured, a growing number of Americans, regardless of political persuasion, are going to grow even more impatient about our military efforts in Afghanistan and in the greater Middle East.

The other thing that infuriates me is the fact that we’ve spent hundreds of billions on domestic security, much of which, if not most of which, has been wasted. There is no doubt that we have brave and effective public servants who’ve made us safer by being more keenly aware of the threats we face. But consider the boondoggles that have grown like a cancer over the same period of time, and how much they’ve cost us in money and freedom.

There’s been a lot of talk about the political implications of the death of OBL. My take is that the main impact will be on the Republican field. A certain style of critique directed at the president — that he’s a Carter-esque wimp — will resonate less strongly with the wider public, and somewhat less strongly with grassroots conservatives and Republican primary voters. The competence critique, centered on President Obama’s handling of a rocky economy, may well come to the fore.

This creates an opportunity for another “it’s the economy, stupid” candidate. My sense is that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels could fit the role nicely. Like his friend Haley Barbour, Daniels has suggested that the United States needs to refocus its military efforts. And he has a compelling story to tell about his stewardship of Indiana’s state government. Hit hard by the decline in manufacturing employment, the Indiana economy is picking up a head of steam and its state budget is in unusually good shape. But we’ll see.