The final question of the UBL poll asked “Will UBL’s death result in more or less AQ-inspired attacks over the next 5 years? (2011-2016)”. The below chart shows the open poll results (from this website, 29 voters) and the internal poll results (CT experts I queried, 21 voters). A reminder there is likely some duplication of respondents between the two polls.
Of all three questions in the UBL poll, question 3 showed the greatest differences between the two samples. Internal poll respondents predominately selected “More” attacks while readers selected “No Change” in the pace of attacks.
Internal poll respondents, CT experts I queried, answered in a pattern similar to previous questions. Academics stuck together predominately choosing “More” attacks (6 of 9). Meanwhile, other professional categories split relatively evenly across all three responses.
I debated whether to define “attacks” more narrowly when I posted this poll. Does “attacks” mean more attacks by groups? inspired people (like M.O.M. or Martinez)? against Westerners? in the West? against Middle East, South Asia and North African governments?
It’s difficult to describe what “more” or “less” attacks is overall and to what extent they are related to AQ. AQ attacks are a low frequency, high impact event and I continuously debate people over attack trends. In my opinion, ten years of media coverage repeats a consistent story: “chatter is up” (what does this mean?), “homegrown terrorism is on the rise” (does that mean attacks? attempts? one attack this year versus two attacks last year?). I think this influences our thinking about how many attacks will occur in the future. If one’s job is to find terrorism, one will always be expecting to see more terrorism.
However, several respondents made an excellent point. With UBL dead, AQ affiliated groups and AQ Central’s new leader will likely begin executing more attacks; competing with each other to demonstrate capability and demonstrate hierarchy. This is a good point, but I’m uncertain how long this competition would endure. A five-year span of terror attacks is quite long. Five years ago, we were talking about Zarqawi.
I think there will be an initial spike of attacks due to competition. But, I think attacks over a five-year span will go down. The wind will come out of AQ post-Bin Laden. There will still be attacks, but I think it will be hard to tell if an attack is AQ, some regional terror group, or a lone wolf. Then again, what is “more” and what is “less”? Who is counting? How are they counting? And will we ever let ourselves believe there could be “less” attacks when we are constantly looking for “more”?
Of all three questions in the UBL poll, question 3 showed the greatest differences between the two samples. Internal poll respondents predominately selected “More” attacks while readers selected “No Change” in the pace of attacks.
Internal poll respondents, CT experts I queried, answered in a pattern similar to previous questions. Academics stuck together predominately choosing “More” attacks (6 of 9). Meanwhile, other professional categories split relatively evenly across all three responses.
I debated whether to define “attacks” more narrowly when I posted this poll. Does “attacks” mean more attacks by groups? inspired people (like M.O.M. or Martinez)? against Westerners? in the West? against Middle East, South Asia and North African governments?
It’s difficult to describe what “more” or “less” attacks is overall and to what extent they are related to AQ. AQ attacks are a low frequency, high impact event and I continuously debate people over attack trends. In my opinion, ten years of media coverage repeats a consistent story: “chatter is up” (what does this mean?), “homegrown terrorism is on the rise” (does that mean attacks? attempts? one attack this year versus two attacks last year?). I think this influences our thinking about how many attacks will occur in the future. If one’s job is to find terrorism, one will always be expecting to see more terrorism.
However, several respondents made an excellent point. With UBL dead, AQ affiliated groups and AQ Central’s new leader will likely begin executing more attacks; competing with each other to demonstrate capability and demonstrate hierarchy. This is a good point, but I’m uncertain how long this competition would endure. A five-year span of terror attacks is quite long. Five years ago, we were talking about Zarqawi.
I think there will be an initial spike of attacks due to competition. But, I think attacks over a five-year span will go down. The wind will come out of AQ post-Bin Laden. There will still be attacks, but I think it will be hard to tell if an attack is AQ, some regional terror group, or a lone wolf. Then again, what is “more” and what is “less”? Who is counting? How are they counting? And will we ever let ourselves believe there could be “less” attacks when we are constantly looking for “more”?
No comments:
Post a Comment