1. Dan

   05/06/2009 at 1:11 pm

   So, if you gather enough data, pick 2 pieces of that, graph it and adjust the scales enough, it is amazing what you can prove.

   Without seeing all of the other analysis that (hopefully) got done, no one can tell for sure.

   However, his data seems pretty limited to justify any kind of conclusion.

   I do believe that you can use math to study war. However, you have to be careful and thorough with that analysis.

   The little he presented didn’t seem very thorough or careful.

   Reply
2. mark

   05/06/2009 at 5:53 pm

   This is how war should be studied. Everthing breaks down to a math equation. The more you fragment an insurgency the weaker it becomes. Of course you don’t need a math equation for that, but the math does show what the numerical constant is for a prolonged insurgency. The next question is what are the ways to bring down the numbers, and of course what is the number that signifies when a goverment will topple. IE what is Pakistans number now? At what point on the number scale do we act in our nations regards? I am sure some smart guys in a RAND think tank already have a device more refined than this.

   Reply
3. Miss Ladybug

   05/07/2009 at 1:39 am

   Things that make you go “Hhhhmmmm…”

   Reply
4. sue05

   05/07/2009 at 3:22 am

   While Mark makes a valid point in that everything can be boiled down to a Mathematical equation, I tend to lean with Dan in that a bean counter can make any study say anything they want basically. Thats what statistics and probability is all about. Data can be skewed in many ways, as in opinion polls just by changing one word in a question. How do we know what other factors affect the slope of those lines that werent included in the study. I’m gonna sit with Miss Ladybug, and go “Hhhhhmmmmmm. . . . “

   Reply
5. Tom

   05/07/2009 at 7:11 am

   Sean is a mathematical physicist, and his research area is nanoscale assembly. Pulling out these kinds of relationships are exactly what physicists are trained to do.

   This is a power-law relationship, and it does look like he has good chi-squares until you get up to the bigger casualty counts. His comments on what the movement of alpha means are a little speculative, and he says as much. If this were a physics problem, he’d probably have a good description of the experiment he wants to do next. Since this is an economics problem, he’s pointing you at the next observation you should make: If you reduce the size of the force in Iraq, it should create an environment where a political solution is more likely, but perhaps at the expense of a surge in violence.

   The thing to keep in mind is that this kind of statistical technique gives a very good understanding of correlation when you have ratty data. This is almost the default case in physics – rarely do you have very clean data when the scales are very large (astrophysics) or very small (nano-to-particle physics). What he’s describing is almost certainly a real phenomenon.

   Note that he didn’t make a policy recommendation. He did suggest that this analysis is useful for making policy decision. If you believe a political solution in Iraq is possible (or a political solution in Northern Ireland, for that matter: It’s the exact same problem) then you need to let the groups get larger while reducing the *number* of attacks. (Because each attack will be more effective.) If you believe that a political solution is not possible, then you need to throw more combat power in to actively disrupt the insurgency, but be prepared for small attacks everywhere (because you won’t be effective in preventing small-group action.)

   I’d love to see him publish somewhere, but I don’t know where. “Foreign Affairs” and the like are policy journals. “Science” and “Physics Review” are focused on the subject matter. He’s identified one relationship, and I suspect there are others that would be valuable to a policy maker who has a little math, and is willing to base decisions on facts and analysis, rather than political posture. Having published results, peer-reviewed and part of a vigorous conversation about what the data say (rather than a shouting match over how evil the other side is) could be really useful.

   I think decisions based on facts and rigorous analysis would be a better use of the sacrifice our young men and women have been willing to make.

   tc>

   Reply
6. CJ

   05/07/2009 at 9:41 am

   Personally, I find this whole thing fascinating and I think his conclusions highlight the difficulties of the Iraq theater. What isn’t factored into the equation that would solve the entire thing is for the insurgency to simply capitulate and take an active role in rebuilding the country instead of tearing it down so we CAN leave and we ALL get our way.

   Reply
7. Grumpy

   05/10/2009 at 2:30 am

   Hello, CJ,

   Having grown up around mathematicians, I found this to very interesting. My question is this, what are his primary assumptions? Are we just talking of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, with some attention to Pakistan? For the sake of discussion, let me put it a different way. A “superpower” decides to liberate Kansas and Wyoming from the “tyranny of the United States”. What do you think would be the possibility of “issues”? I mean really long term “issues”. Having said that, I do not believe it will actually happen here. But I want to get people thinking about A’stan and Iraq as “nation-states” in a much larger culture. This culture has its own laws and court system. *I do not agree with it, but it does exist.* As I look at this picture, I am reminded of the first law of warfare, “Know Your Enemy”. The second thing is an old adage on Military leadership, “Amateurs debate tactics and professionals debate logistics.” In today’s world, it reminds me of something I was taught in Basic Training, “Your soul may be the Lord’s, but your ass is US Government property, TAKE CARE OF IT!”

   CJ, THANK YOU, for your continual service to this Nation.

   Forever,
   Grumpy

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply