I wonder, too, whether similar argument might be made of others. For instance, Zawahiri and Bin Laden. Did not both realize that mass casualties among Muslims were bad PR, and did not both seek to reduce their number. Or again, as argued in the article on camps in Ten Years Later, after his return to Afghanistan, were not Bin Laden and his camps regarded by the Taliban as a moderating force — the real radicals declaring even the Taliban and Bin Laden to be among the kuffar?

Lastly, while al-Libi was charismatic and important within his nexus, did respect for him as an ideologue extend much further? He could certainly produce movies, but was he a trained jurist and respected as such. Did he have a stature comparable to popular ideologues like Maqdisi or Abu Qatadah? And if so, what difference might that make given the importance of a tradition of real jurists of jihad, men like Bin `Uthaymin, al-`Awda, al-Munajjid, and al-Hawali, or the innumerable Pakistan equivalents?

At any rate, I do look forward to your fuller work on this topic.

Thank you

Link: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/how_extremism_is_normalized/singleton/

This could equally go on your post from Harpers Magazine ‘Eye of the drone’ and the comments made elsewhere on the drones impact in the Yemen.

The argument for CT policies and actions are to create or gain time by curtailing, sometimes eliminating violence and so enable political changes – when those who use violence desist. Drones in their selective assassination mode (hat tip to Fuchs on SWC for that) do gain time by decapitation, which must be looked at, no reviewed in the light of their impact and potential downsides.

With the core AQ and strongest affiliates I see no prospect of their campaign based on hatred and more reaching a point where political changes can occur.

What is needed is a clear, repeated explanation why a drone strike was used – akin to “These people plotted murder in a place where law enforcement was not available, nor local action and the risk was too high to let them continue”. Where a mistake is made, accept it was so and enable compensation.

Points made in the usually conservative Daily Telegraph, by a columnist, Peter Oborne and their chief foreign correspondent – a rather unusual place for some to see such comments.

Links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9300187/It-may-seem-painless-but-drone-war-in-Afghanistan-is-destroying-the-Wests-reputation.html and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100161679/choosing-who-lives-and-who-dies-the-methodical-assassinations-of-barack-obamas-kill-list/

The WPR article is alas behind a pay-wall and so I fear will remain there. Good to see your blog is reactivated too.