Moral Confusion

From the WSJ Opinion Journal, after ripping into the New York Times for it's morally corrupt editorials, it offers this contrast:

'It Must Be Won'
For a counterpoint to the preceding item, check out this op-ed piece from today:

Words of condemnation and solidarity are fine and great in their symbolic value, but they are not enough unless backed by practical measures in cooperation with Britain and the rest of the civilized world to defeat the evil forces of terrorism.

To win the war against terror, and it must be won, we need to understand the terrorists' strategy and tactics. First they need a motive, second an operational capability to carry out attacks, and third an aim. The last is almost impossible to identify in the case of Al-Qaeda, since it is not clear what constitutes a strategic "victory" for them. . . . Al-Qaeda's terrorists have no respect for human life.

The author of this article was Adel Darwish, and the newspaper was the Arab News. What does it tell us that a Saudi newspaper has more moral clarity than the New York Times?