I think one major obstacle to clear thinking is the traditional definition of "Sanctuary" as being "ungoverned space."

I've always felt this was a superficial assessment; one that may often appear true on the surface, but does the sanctuary really come from the "space" or something else? At the end of the day, there isn't much "ungoverned" space out there (Antarctica comes to mind), and such spaces are also unpopulated, so not of much use to an insurgent.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan they do take advantage of what I would call "self-governed spaces," where official governance either does not extend, or is not appreciated or recognized when it does extend, but where the populace has traditional systems of governance that function very well without such official interference. These are also area where perceptions of "Poor Governance" prevail. So step one for me is to drop the focus on ungoverned space, and instead shift the focus to self-governed and/or poorly governed populaces.

So, step one frees us from an unhealthy focus on real estate, and a more addressable focus on the people who live there, and the state of how those populaces truly govern themselves, and how they feel about other governance that is imposed upon them (Just based on this approach one would quickly realize that the absolute worst move we could make is Pakistan is to force the government of Pakistan to extend itself up into the tribal areas that they have traditionally stayed out of.) Our misunderstanding of what makes "sanctuary" has driven us to drive the Pakistan government to take on a program that has greatly destabilized their country, while at the same time actually expanding the influence of insurgent and UW groups in that area.

Next is to drill into the current "nonstate" (AQ, etc) and "Quasi-state" (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc) organizations and ask, what is it that make these new information-age driven organizations so effective and frustrating for States to deal with??? For me, it comes down to this: "Legal Status" They find sanctuary in the fact that they are outside the law. They possess no real estate that they must defend, they simply borrow what dirt they need from some state, but then only for the time the need it. They possess no populace that they must govern or protect, again, they only borrow what aspect of whatever populace they might appeal to, and then only for what they need (some provide no more than moral support, some finance, some action officers to work network functions, some fighters, etc).

So, combining the two, I think that it is high time to retire the tired, overly simplistic (not the same as simple), and dangerously misleading term of "ungoverned space" and trade up to one of "a combination of poorly governed populaces, who are often also largely self-governed, combined with a legal status that combines to protect insurgent and terrorist organizations from the effective rule of law."

Bottom line is that it was not Sherwood Forest in of itself that protected Robin Hood and his Merry Men (clearly an insurgent organization against the illegitimate government of John of England). They needed a place to hide, sure. But the primary sanctuary came from the people and their outlaw status. Remove/deny the forest and their primary sanctuary still exists.

The same is true for AQ, if we somehow deny them the "Sherwood Forest" of the AF/PAK border region, their primary sanctuary not only still exists, but has arguably been enhanced globally by the West's very actions to deny the physical sanctuary of that region.