On a global scale, what is the size of Al Qa段da and/or other Terrorist Groups?
I am interested in opinions and/or studies that may lead to an accurate approximation of the size of terrorist groups around the world. I know opinions may vary widely. I have written several papers on the topic of Insurgents vs Terrorists, and have my opinion too. But I am interested in learning more. I came across a concept known as Dunbar's Number in which he makes an argument to the upper limits of social organizations. His research does not speak at all to terrorist groups--in fact his research was done many years before Oklahoma City, 911, or other attacks.
Dunbar has theorized that 150 would be the group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming. Correspondingly, only groups under intense survival pressure, such as subsistence villages, nomadic tribes, and historical military groupings have, on average, achieved the 150-member mark. Moreover, Dunbar noted that such groups are almost always physically close: "... we might expect the upper limit on group size to depend on the degree of social dispersal. In dispersed societies, individuals will meet less often and will thus be less familiar with each, so group sizes should be smaller in consequence." Thus, the 150-member group would only occur because of absolute necessity, i.e. due to intense survival, security, environmental and/or economic pressures.
However, as with many theoretical values, it has occasionally been abused and mistaken as a "magic number". It has also been popularized as the monkeysphere, a neologism coined by David Wong in an article which introduces this concept.
In its popularization, the research of Dunbar and others is taken as an upper bound of the number of fellow humans that an individual can view as being "truly human". In this form, the "monkeysphere" functions as a reductionistic and biologistic explanation for why humans can treat some humans with consideration and other humans indifferently or even inhumanely.
"The reason that the people in village X don't mind doing Y to the people in village Z is because the people in village Z are not in the monkeysphere of people in village X."
Recently, I took the liberty to study our Small Wars Community and found that if you add up the number of members on our site and then subtract those that had zero or only one response ever to the postings, the numer falls within the range of Dunbar's postulate.
For the sake of this thread, I ask that we separate Insurgencies from Terrorist operatives. In addition, I ask that we define terrorists members as "Card Carrying." In other words, it is OK to be dienfranchised but I would define a card carrying member as one who has a call to arms and will act upon that calling.
On a global scale, what is the size of Al Qa段da and/or other Terrorist Groups?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
, terrorism is more of a tactic to influence events
I agree that there are significant and fundamental differences between Terrorists and Insurgents--significant differences in their motives, targets, their desires, their funding, their socioeconomic class, their ability to apostatize and in the way we must fight each-- but in my question, I am specifically interested in Terrorist Groups. I understand the discussion of terrorism as more of a tactic but I believe that we have defined Terrorism (capital T) to be more than just a tactic as it once was used. Tim McVeigh was a Terrorist, he also used terrorist techniques, Al Qa'ida is a Terrorist group and they used terrorist tactics. Terrorists "Only" strike strategic targets based on their ideology--local lawlessness is not strategic nor is it ideological. Insurgency fighting in Iraq is not strategic--as a result, I believe that their are very very few Terrorists and or cells operating in Iraq contrary to what many may say. That notwithstanding, I am interested in the size of the global Terrorist community and would appreciate your thoughts.
History and Charismatic Leaders
To settlers on the borders of the advancing Western frontier, the plains Indians were terrorists. To the US military, they were a powerful insurgent force. Red Cloud had led a successful campaign against US forces that resulted in the closing of the Bozeman trail. He then settled down as did his followers. As Crazy Horse, Gaul and Sitting Bull continued to emerge as powerful war leaders, they were able to pull many recruits north who participated at Rosebud and Little Big Horn. Many of the same recruits/volunteers subsequently returned to the reservations and secured areas. Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and their bands kept on the move. Said bands and their number of fighting men were relatively small in number compared to availbable numbers at the time of the two previously mentioned big fights. History would suggest that when Zaqawri was at his peak, there was likewise a peak in number of active and tacit supporters. I see these stats, the attempts at making a head count or terrorists per se, as very murky and fluid at best. This murkiness gives some justification IMHO for the population-centric approach in counterinsurgency in the Iraq theatre of operations.
Fast Horses and Traditional Tactics
I would propose that the plains Indians were the finest light cavalry seen since the Mongols did their thing. Crook rode a mule when he engaged Apaches for its endurance and common sense. I suspect he was a strong advocate of drafting Thoroughbred horses from Kentucky, Tenn. and Virginia to use for extremely rapid, small strike forces carrying Winchesters against the Lakota to keep the women of the villages upset and demanding of their men to pack up and continually move, thus limiting their organizational ability and food gathering ability. Traditional tactics ruled the day as Custer post-mortem tells us. The War Dept. did finally muster enough sense to supply the winter troops with buffalo coats so they were able to pursue Crazy Horse in the winter of 76', kept him moving and it resulted in him bringing in his band in 77'. Head counts don't seem to have much direct bearing on the mind set that controls the response to an opponent of this nature and I suspect in Iraq of today, the incident-to-response 'formula' can be improved on in many ways.