Are there (at least) 2 different types of terrorism to be concerned about? If we're talking about indig terror that is not facillitated by the state it is operating in, or if we're talking about a HN population that does not facillitate it as an alternative to functioning govt, or a group that is incapable of using state resources to aquire greater means - does that make a difference?

I did up the paper because DR Kilcullen's piece was a kind of a challenge - that asks a question about not only the causal nature of terror, but how to mitigate it. It raises the possibility that there might be a pro-active vs. a reactive way to approach it. I confined the proposal pretty much to the military side - which has all kinds of down sides (bunches of headaches and rislks) - but because its mostly military would make it more streamlined, or to some degree lessen the overhead.

The question is not only about the motivation of terrorist groups, but the way in which they are able to accelerate their growth and gain access to means they would not otherwise have.

I'm sort of working through this, but I do beleive that transnational groups beleive that some groups are more respondant to their message then others - impoverished states with lack of governance in total or in areas (grey spaces) are more permissive for them. How do you counter that - is it better to be reactive or proactive? Which is more efficient in the long or short of it? What are the alternatives? What are the risks and benefits? I'm pretty sure AQ and like groups have done the cost benefit analysis - but I'm not sure we have. Our traditional options & strengths may have caused us to overlook options, and may have even pre-cluded us from some - condsider the multitude of reasons why states in N.Africa are uncomfortable with the idea of hosting AFRICOM. Even using the military in a more internationally perceived "humanitarian" role may only be seen as realist opportunism - depends on how you go about it.

Regards, Rob