as a pacifist. Maybe he's trying to be more guarded in revealing his misgivings, aware that to the reader his moral stance would obviously disqualify it as a valid political strategy and therefore a criticism to be written off as one based on personal feelings. Discrediting its efficacy seems like a 'hard data', statistician's way of shaping general attitudes about the practice to the extent that he's able through his writing.

is the reason for assassination's inefficacy the martyrdom effect, or that it removes a figurehead but leaves the political vehicle, in his opinion?