The terrible attacks committed in Mumbai, clearly designed to kill as many innocent people as possible have confirmed that Al Qaeda-influenced terrorism continues to present an unacceptable threat to global security. It is probable that such an ambitious and well co-ordinated attack was authorised and planned several hundred miles north west of Mumbai in the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan where the Al Qaeda leadership is currently holed up. We know for a fact that several of the al Qaeda plots in Britain were planned and directed by al Qaeda leaders based in North West Pakistan. The leaders of the 7/7 and 21/7 plots learn their bomb making skills at terrorist traning camps in Pakistan, as did the leader of the ‘Fertilliser Bomb Plot’ and the ‘Gas Limos Bomb Plot’. The alleged plot to blow up a dozen airliners in 2006 also appeared to be directed from al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, in particular by one Rashid Rauf.

Rashid Rauf briefly made the headlines this week when it was announced that he had met his untimely end as the result of a US missile strike in North West Pakistan, of course that news has since been overshadowed by more recent and bloody events. It appears that the target of the strike had been Abu Zubair al-Masri, a top level Al Qaeda commander and explosives expert whose death was confirmed by an Islamist website. However, sometimes you are judged by the company you keep and the same website also reported the deaths of Rashid Rauf and three other militants.

This strike, by an unmanned drone, was the the most recent of several similar strikes since the summer. According to The Times President Bush signed of new rules of engagement this summer which allowed missile strikes to be launched with a much lower probability of success, 50% as opposed to 90% previously. These strikes appear to have been successful in putting pressure on al Qaeda’s leadership and as a result the group has been forced to move senior leaders out of the tribal areas and ino the North West Frontier Province. An American intelligence official told The Times the upsurge in attacks was the resut of fears of an al Qaeda spectecular, “But there is also a very real threat of an attack in Obama’s first days and even the bitterest loser wouldn’t want to see that.”

The use of unmanned Predator drones to kill terrorist targets is intertwined with the history of America's 10 year old struggle with al Qaeda. In late 2000 the CIA used the prototype Predator drone to track bin Laden in a prioject dubbed, “Aghan Eyes”. At this stage the drones were unarmed and there was considerable debate in Washington about whether it would be illegal to assasinate bin Laden, despite there being several opportunities to do so. Of course 9/11 altered perceptions of the threat posed by al Qaeda and on 3 November 2002 the US used a Predator drone to kill Abu Ali al-Harithi (believed to be behind the USS Cole bombing) and five other militants as they travelled in a car in Yemen. Although the strike was sucesful it proved immensley controversial within intelligence circles in Washington. The tactic was not repeated until there were a handful of strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan in 2005 and 2006 which again killed senior al Qaeda leaders. The upsurge in attacks since the summer appears to be an attempt by Gorge Bush to ensure that he piles on the pressure on the al Qaeda leadership before Obama is innaugurated.

Of course the Predator strikes are still immensley controversial. Assasination is illegal under American law that much is true, yet so is euthanasia; the law is no guide to wheher something is morally right or wrong. It is terrible when any innocent civillian dies but Predator strikes are highly targeted and selective and very few civillians have been killed as a result. The civillian deaths that have occurred are tragic but they must be balanced against the potential civillian casualties that would occur if al Qaeda was given free reign to commit atrocities. It is immensley desirable that terrorists are brought to justice through legal means, indeed the vast majority are, but that is not possible for those who hideout in the lawless tribal regions of Afghanistan. Rahsid Rauf was arrested at America’s request in 2006, however he quickly escaped after Pakistani police allowed him to have his lunch at Burger King and then pray at a local mosque. Just the slighterst, merest hint of collusion there, do you reckon? Therefore we need to take a realistic approach to dealing with the global menace presented by al Qaeda, in my opinion it is essential to apply military and criminal pressure on the top leadership whilst pursuading potential footsoldiers and sympathisers to turn their back on violent Jihad.

The real case against the use of Predator strikes is not a moral or legal argument but rather the fact that they may be counterproductive. The Times claimed that the Pakistani Government has given its tacit approval of the drone strikes, it is, after all engaged in it own brutal war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. This may be so but even after Musharraf’s removal it is unclear where the real power lies in the country and if there are too many strikes it could lead to popular unrest against the elected Government. Therefore I believe that once Obama comes to power drone strikes will again need a 90% probability of success before they are authorised. Pakistan has so many enormous problems of its own that a few strikes against foreign militants in the backward tribal provinces are unlikely to provoke mass unrest amongst the Pakistani population. This risk level must then be balanced against the opportunity to eliminate a senior terrorist, such as Rauf, and thereby the potential to save thousands of lives. If the US had assasinated bin Laden in 1998, it may have been illegal but few would have heard about it, nobody would have much cared and think what might have been avoided; 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, 7/7, the attacks in Mumbai. Surely it would have been a morally justifiable act?

The other argument against drone strikes is that they encourage increased support for al Qaeda, but this is a fallacy; just like the argument that the Iraq War ‘made’ people blow themselves up on tube trains. If someone decides to support a murderous terrorist group as a result of a strike against a terrorist then the chances are that they would have been sympathetic to that ideology in any case. It is a perverted and distorted interperatation of Islam that causes people to kill as many innocent civillians as possible, not foreign policy. After all the predator strikes were ordered in Washington so why did Islamist militants decide to massacre Indian Hindus waiting for their commuter trains in Mumbai?