I’m glad so many people found my short article engaging enough to discuss. More importantly, I am glad that you’ve put forward so many good thoughts.

Some responses:

Seeking to measure insurgencies is seeking to measure intangibles, you’re right. Putting an exact number on concepts as slippery as public allegiance is impossible, as TOM OC and Rob Thornton have noted. But I think we can find a range, and track that range over time to discover trends. After all, we don’t need to know the exact temperature to determine if the weather has grown warmer or cooler, and by what general amount.

A focus on equity is interesting, TOM OC. I certainly hadn’t thought of it. And, now that I have, I’m convinced it has merit. If citizens view government as an investment, the question is a natural one – what kind of return (output) are they getting for their investment (input)? In other words, is loyalty or allegiance rewarded more than defection?

I’m not sure what exact metrics could serve as markers for this measure – again TOM and Rob’s problem of intangibles – but it’s worth thinking about. Without a doubt, popular allegiance is one of the most important measures in assessing insurgencies.

Slapout9 suggested another metric for gauging this measure – refugee tallies. Certainly, when people flee their country, they are signaling their complete lack of faith in the government. But I think this metric has limits, or a cutoff, because it is so binary. In other words, it measures extreme disaffection and not degrees of disaffection. As a result, it may be a good threshold marker, but I don’t think it’s well suited for spotting smaller trends.

I thought Chiropetra’s points were particularly strong. As Nassim Taleb ruefully notes in his new book “The Black Swan,” reporters have a disconcerting tendency to “cluster” around one framework or approach. Especially in an environment of political pressure (another strong point), weaning the media away from that approach will be very difficult.

The methodology that follows the five principles I highlighted would be complex. The strategy may have several goals. Each goal will have several measures. And each measure will lean on several metrics. It is an open question whether or not the media will accept something not easily summarized in headline-style declarations.

Here’s an ethical question: Rather than try to engage the media in a discussion of the complexities and nuance of measures, is it better to decide upon five or ten metrics to promote instead? What if we knew they offered an incomplete view of events?

Mean_liar brought a different perspective, suggesting that, because metrics have not clarified the situation, they should be discarded. Worse, s/he writes, they have led to factual distortion and bias. And, the last straw, s/he says, is that their “predictive performance is demonstrably lacking.”

Though I disagree with mean_liar’s assertions, I believe we have more room for agreement than he or she realizes. Current metrics have not clarified the situation in an intellectually honest way. Both political parties have used them selectively, introducing bias. And, indeed, their predictive performance is low.

But I feel as if I addressed these points in my article. Current metrics have not clarified the situation because no clear analytical framework or methodology has entered the public discourse. This is what allows columnists and politicians to use them as they please, leading to bias. And the metrics I describe were never meant to predict the future, only to measure trends in the present and recent past.

Flying Carpet issues similar criticism, but touches on one useful point that hinders clear interpretation at a basic level – What should we do about outliers? Do we write off mass-casualty attacks as abnormalities or include them as important influences? Do they deserve special consideration somehow?

And, last, the CSIS report is very helpful. Thanks much for pointing it out, Jedburgh. To be honest, I’m a little embarrassed that I hadn’t found it before ; )

I look forward to another good round of discussion. If you’d like to get in touch with me, my email address is jem99 [at] georgetown [dot] edu.