Andrew Exum published an interesting piece in The New Republic this week on the Obama Administration's new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taking the tack that it's actually a 'counter-haven' (quoting David Kilcullen) strategy, Exum waded into murky waters.... and the blogosphere went a wee bit nuts. As one of the few individuals in the English speaking world to publish anything contemporary that deals explicitly with the subject (with a substantial nod to Rex), I know I have a responsibility to speak up. I'm supposed to be writing something up for a certain high profile national security blog, but I think there's an angle here for symposium participants to pursue, particularly as regards precision strike in urban environments, implications for command and control, the techno-targeting that may or may not reduce collateral consequences, the easing of moral constraints, etc.: what does sanctuary mean when refuge is reduced from macro scales to personal space, and what are the implications of/for technologically enhanced countermeasures? How does Wired For War relate to the debate on safe havens, and more importantly, how can it  or should it influence the discussion?