Bill,

I have no problem with drone strikes against group 1 and 2; its the conflation of group 3 and drone strikes against them I find problematic. As you say, 2 and 3 are mixed together quite often, all the more reason to find a new kind of "precision."

A weapon that strikes within feet of my intended target is very precise mechanically speaking; but if that target is a mix of nationalist insurgents and members of AQ's UW node that is plugged in with them we have a problem with a very different kind of precision. We lack a precise understanding of the nature of the problem.

This is the problem I see with conflation. The average intel bubba would not see a problem with killing 5 MILF insurgents on Mindanao along with the two JI guys who were there delivering cash or some message. The commander/ops guys likely wouldn't see the problem either. Same same for Pakistan. We target a house with one AQ guy in it and 10 Pakistani Pashtuns who are Taliban. Both of these examples are tactical successes and strategic failures as they do not differentiate between good CT and who that needs to be applied to, and good COIN and how that needs to be applied.

I know that most who read what I am writing here will think "So what?" and that is my very point.

The "so what" is that AQ continues to grow in influence due to the broad brush we apply to the threat.