Andrew Sullivan:

So we have a Muslim convert, sympathetic to the murderers of 9/11, terrorizing the nation's capital, and coming close to shutting its daily life down. I don't see that it matters whether he was formally a member of al Qaeda or some other group.

I suspect that this is going to become a widely held belief in the consertarian region of the 'sphere, but it's not one I am buying in to. Whether or not he was "formally" a member of al-Qaeda or not isn't as important as whether or not these groups supported him (or gave him the orders to do it). All indications suggest otherwise at this point. That's important.

Many liberals have said that our war on terror ought to include abortion clinic bombers and militia groups because they are, after all, terrorists too. So's the sniper. They are not, however, members of the organization that we should have dead in our sights right now. They are (1) domestic and (2) independent operators and/or members of groups with only mild common cause and overlap.

Because they are domestic, they should necessarily be handled by police rather than military personnel. They are crimes. What al-Qaeda did constituted war because they are a foreign entity. We can't keep an eye on them like we can domestic terrorists. We can count on local authorities cooperating to the maximum extent possible (as opposed to authorities in Indonesia and Pakistan). When we set out sights on Afghanistan, protesters argued that we didn't bomb Alabama because of Timothy McVeigh. The thing is we didn't have to bomb Alabama or anywhere else because there was no question that if found he would be caught and if caught arrested. If the Governor of Alabama (which, when you think about it, was a random selection on the libs part) declared that he would not rigorously pursue the terrorists and would not allow the federal government in to do the same, you can bet troops would be sent down. Remember the occupation of Little Rock?

Because of assumed local cooperation, we don't have to go into all-out war mode like we did in Afghanistan and may in Syria or other nations. Because we don't have to go to war, police work should take care of the job. Different methods, different tools, different war.

Secondly, unless evidence surfaces that the sniper was aided or (directly) aiding al-Qaeda, we can assume they were operating independently. It appears as though he's something of a copycat inspired by 9/11, but that doesn't place him in the aggregate organization. If a killer pops up and a copycat appears and the police capture the copycat, it can hardly be announced that "We have struck a blow against the killer!" unless the two were working in concordance. The arrest of the sniper is a wonderful thing, but not a victory in the war on terror. It's a victory in the war on crime.

Stuart Buck recently pondered whether or not this was meant to be a distraction. Looking at what I've seen, I don't think that it is. That is something that should be investigated to make sure that they are not connected, but at this point the evidence does not indicate a connection. Right now his actions are more analogous to that of a serial killer and sometimes a duck is a duck, no matter how he's dressed. No puns or metaphors about nooses or rabbits forthcoming.

There are two observations I have in conclusion to this entire ordeal:
1) Our behavior in regards to it all has not been particularly stellar. I can understand how we lost our cool due to the randomness of all the tragedy, but this is something we're going to have to get used to in the longer run. While we were panicking over here, 14 were killed in Israel by terrorists over there. We need to learn to be patient and calm, cause something like this will happen again.
2) I'm very glad he was an American. I wouldn't want to give the primary enemy the satisfaction.