How can anyone take seriously this kind of criticism, when Afghanistan is once again falling back into the hands of the very people who sheltered the 9/11 killers.

Youtube, the new weapon in the fight against terrorism? Good God almighty.

I happened to work with businesses and groups on both sides of the sectarian divide in Scotland during the 80s and 90s - many had definite views and very concrete support for one side or the other. I know what they believed had worked or not worked.

I didn't say that the UK's strategy of "shoot to kill" on targeted provos was the only factor, just a major one. There were, of course, several other threads - one was a concerted "hearts and minds" effort to win away their support in the populace. 9/11 helped a lot too - at last US supporters worked out what they had been funding.

Read the post I linked - you lock up the ones you think you can do a deal with later and shoot the ones you can't. Both the main Sinn Fein leaders spent time in the H block while many compatriots died. Another leader who was imprisoned later turned out to be a double agent for UK intelligence who had been turned while in prison after seeing more hardline leaders dead at the hands of the SAS etc...

Regards, C

Cernig, I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation of the UK strategy against the IRA. I think a better interpretation is that events (over which neither side had control) caused the IRA's tactics to be rejected by their supporters.

The prescription? One bullet, one target, repeat as needed.

Regards, C

Those ideas don't translate well from politics into anti-terror. But I do think there is a germ of an idea here.

Produce slick music videos satirizing and poking fun at the terrorists. Get people in the Arab world to be humming the tune to the Arabic equivalent of "Osama sucks blue donkey d*cks".

Play up the Muslim victims of terrorist attacks with video, pamphlets, etc.

Distribute tapes and videos for alternate explanation of Koran that doesn't support terrorism.

Highlight success stories of western Muslims who have been financially successful and have kept their faith in the west.

Websites with tickers showing the number or terrorists killed.

All of these things can be done without endangering intelligent gathering assets. They can also help to undermine morale among the population you are trying to recruit from. You can do them in a variety of styles, from slick professional to amateurish. Whatever works best or a combination.

Less secrecy, because you can't have "ubiquitous transparency is our calling-card 5GW weapon" if you're keeping every tiny thing secret.

More reliance on competence instead of secrecy. Because it doesn't work - eventually incompetence always shines through and then ends up on the web. (Bolton and Rummie are like an Al Qaida propaganda coup on four legs.)

"Hearts and minds" in the target audience - because it won't work if they think you just fake everything. It has to be authentic and it has to use framing the audience "gets" at a deep level. When it does start working, it reinforces the "hearts and minds" effort as a force multiplier.

Just some thoughts.

Imagine if there were a vid of Osama getting drunk or high, which was undeniably real and surreptitiously filmed, running on every news channel worldwide. Imagine Bush appearing on the same vid to say he understood how hard it was to stay off the sauce/drugs but that he, through deep faith, had managed it. That he didn't condemn Osama for this weakness because the Lord, by any name, teaches forgiveness for such failures of the will (killing in cold blood is another matter). Imagine every muslim in places like Gaza or Mosul had enough electricity to watch that vid and a job to let them buy a TV.

You won't get that effect with satellites, drones and wiretaps.

Regards, C

(I'm not saying they would definitely get such footage, its a hypothetical extreme example to put across the idea)