The death of Reyaad Khan

Richard Barrett was formerly Coordinator of the Al Qaeda / Taliban

Monitoring Team at the United Nations and a founder member of its Task
Force on Counter Terrorism. He is now an adviser on countering violent
extremism with The Soufan Group in New York.
Outside the circle of his friends and family there will be few tears shed at the
death of Reyaad Khan, a 21 year old from Wales, targeted and killed in Syria
by the RAF on 21 August. From being an engaged and articulate youth
activist in Cardiff, he subsequently followed what he himself in an earlier
interview with The Guardian had hinted was the wrong path by joining the socalled Islamic State. His subsequent boasts on social media, graphically
illustrated, suggested his direct involvement in many killings in Syria, some of
them by his account quite likely murder.
But his own death was not in response to these actions, it was, as the Prime
Minister told Parliament on Monday, because he presented a threat to the
lives and security of British citizens in Britain. His targeted assassination was
a counter-terrorist measure, taken because there was no other available way
to prevent an imminent threat.
His killing brings into focus many aspects of the British response to the
terrorist threat, and in particular to the challenges presented by the Islamic
State. Perhaps the first question is why Reyaad Khan joined the Islamic State
in the first place. The most recent official estimate of the number of UK
citizens who have done the same is 700. Not a huge number compared to the
many thousands who have made the journey from Arab States, but
nonetheless a significant one when considering the opportunities and
alternatives that exist in the UK and the lack of them in the Arab World.
Reyaad Khan did not appear to be someone easily duped into thinking that
the Islamic State would somehow provide a life of fairness, respect and
opportunity for all that has so eluded society in the thousands of years of its
evolution. Nonetheless, he appears to have thought it would offer him a
better chance of a good life than his own community in Wales. That is surely
something that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought.
There have been many attempts by the UK and other Western governments
to understand and counter the drivers of terrorism, and the UK is generally
regarded in the West as being at the forefront of these efforts. But in the area
of more public politics, the UK, like its Western counterparts, shows a

muddled and inconsistent approach to international terrorism, unanchored in

any coherent strategy.
In particular, like the US, the UK has no policy for dealing with the mess of
Syria, and it will not be a British initiative that finds the tortuous way through
regional and international politics that leads to the restoration of some
measure of stability in the Middle East. In addressing the threat posed by the
Islamic State, the role of a few manned and unmanned aircraft operated by
the RAF is neither here nor there in terms of impact when matched against
the overall US effort. Its value is almost purely symbolic and the British
engagement has a lot more to do with domestic politics and the transatlantic
alliance than with effective counter terrorism.
But the strike against Reyaad Khan raises new issues. The UK is not at war in
Syria, either on the side of Assad or in partnership with his opponents.
Government views are clear, but legally it continues to regard Syria as one
State ruled by the government in Damascus. The Prime Minister assured
Parliament that the act was considered legal, and that the National Security
Council had agreed that it was necessary in terms of self-defence. It will be
interesting to see the explanation that the UK is obliged to put before the
United Nations in this regard. Khan was accused of plotting to attack public
ceremonies in the UK over the summer, but he was killed on 21 August by
which time all these ceremonies had passed off without incident. The Prime
Minister mentioned that six attacks had been thwarted, but either Khan was
not involved, or they were stopped without the need for his death. It is clear
that there is much more to all this than is publically available right now.
Beyond the legality and necessity of the action, there is the simple question
of whether it was the right thing to do. In combatting terrorism, it is easy to
think that the rules must change, that somehow what we are fighting against
is more important than what we are fighting for. In the longer term, this is not
the route to success, and certainly we cannot kill our way out of the problem.
Furthermore, it plays to the narrative of the terrorists. No doubt the evidence
of Khans intent was compelling, but it was still evidence, not proof as judged
by a court. This is even more important because if the 21 year-old Khan was
so effectively directing plots against the UK as to deserve his death, then this
signals a new phase for the Islamic State. So far, it has overtly encouraged its
supporters to attack in their home countries, but only if they cannot travel to
join the State itself. Attacks have therefore been self-generated by the
perpetrators rather than planned in Syria or Iraq with the despatch from there
of operatives after training in the manner of its rival al-Qaeda. Interestingly,
Khan himself appeared in an Islamic State video urging people to travel to
Syria.
The Prime Ministers announcement of the death of Khan was met by that
typical parliamentary bray of support that fortunately is heard nowhere else
in public life. It was an immediate and unconsidered reaction by
backbenchers who had presumably no advanced knowledge of the
announcement, nor any deep thoughts about its consequences. This kneejerk reaction of serves-him-right is likely to be mirrored widely through the
British public at large; it is an easy headline and a very understandable way

to deal with fear. But society needs a deeper examination of this event; it
raises too many important questions merely to be put down to inevitable
and justifiable - mission creep. A British citizen has been killed by the British
state, outside British jurisdiction, on suspicion of plotting harm to the UK. This
is surely a precedent that needs much public and judicial debate.
This article originally appeared on the Financial Times website on September
14, 2015.
PS21 is a non-national, non-partisan, non-governmental organization. All
views expressed are the authors own.