In criminal law they speak in terms of "motive" and "opportunity." My concern is that in the GWOT's relentless pursuit of the tactic of terrorism; i.e., reduction of opportunity to commit terrorist acts, we have through the manner of our engagement actually increased motive to conduct such acts against us.

So, once we take our thumb off the top of this bottle of OIF/OEF we have been shaking so vigorously, I would suspect all of that motive to manifest itself in enhanced activity against America and American interests.

This, of course, can be mitigated tremendously by retailoring our engagement to be more focused on reducing motive.

One classic example is Iran. We are so hardset on denying the opportunity to them to produce and use WMD, that we seek that end in such ways that increase their motive to actually use such devices against us if they ever do succeed in devloping such weapons. Another example is extreme violence directed at the Pashto populace of AFG/PAK in efforts to gain their support to their respective governments...

Such considerations are far more important in populace-based insurgent warfare than in state-based conventional warfare; non-state intities have far less to fear in terms of being held accountable through retaliation. The tools of DIME designed to engage states are inadequate to the task.

So, without new tools and a new approach, yes, there will be increased activity once we let up on the "suppressive fires" of OIF/OEF.