RAND Corporation. Social Science for Counterterrorism
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Analytic Measures for Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency 485
Murray, W. S., “A Well to Measure,” Parameters, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2001, p. 14.
O’Neill, Bard, Insurgency & Terrorism: Inside Modern Revolutionary Warfare,
Dulles, Va.: Brassey’s Inc., 2000.
Pape, R., Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1996.
Sammons, D. H. J., PSYOP and the Problem of MOE for the Combatant
Commander, Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, Joint Military Operations
Department, 2004.
Sproles, N., “Identifying Success rough Measures,” PHALANX, Vol. 30, No. 4,
1997, pp. 16–31.
———, “Formulating Measures of Effectiveness,” Systems Engineering, Vol. 5,
2002, pp. 253–263.
Sunderland, R., Antiguerrilla Intelligence in Malaya, 1948–1960, Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1964. As of July 18, 2008:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM4172/
Sweetland, A., Item Analysis of the HES (Hamlet Evaluation System), Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1968. As of December 22, 2008:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documents/D17634/
Tanham, G. K., “Indicators of Incipient Insurgency,” Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation, unpublished, 1988.
ayer, T., War Without Fronts: e American Experience in Vietnam, Boulder,
Colo.: Westview Press, 1985.
U.S. Congress, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C.,
October 2005.
———, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C., October 2006.
———, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C., October 2007.
———, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C., March 2008.
U.S. Department of the Army, Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Washington,
D.C., 2006.
U.S. Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint
Publication 1-02, April 12, 2001, As of October 17, 2008:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
———, Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq, Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 60.
U.S. General Accounting Office, El Salvador: Military Assistance Has Helped
Counter But Not Overcome the Insurgency, NSIAD-91-166, Washington D.C.,
1991.
486 Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces Together
Endnotes
1
MOP is also used for “measure of performance,” as when characterizing a system’s efficiency,
such as the number of information operations conducted by an infantry unit within a specific
time period. e Department of Defense (DoD) defines MOP (JP 1-02) more narrowly as “a
criterion to assess friendly actions that is tied to measuring task accomplishment.”
2
Various definitions have been suggested. Sproles (1997) defines MOEs as quantitative or
qualitative metrics that seek to determine how well a system tracks against its purpose or
its normative behavior. DoD’s definition in (JP 1-02) is quite broad: “tools used to measure
results achieved in the overall mission and execution of assigned tasks.” I use the definition
given in Bullock (2006), which defines effectiveness measurement as the difference between
a given system state (for example, lots of terrorism) and some reference state, such as a desired
end-state (for example, no terrorism). System attribute measures can then be developed such
that they yield a system state-space that can be characterized as a metric space, and differ-
ences in system states relative to the reference state can be monitored over time to gauge the
effectiveness of certain tasks.
3
e relationships are not always mutually exclusive, since a single measure can sometimes
serve as both a MOP and a MOE (Keeney, 1992).
4
is concept is identical to the idea of amplitude presented in Bullock (2006).
5
See, for example, Davis (2002) and Kelley, Davis, Bennett, Harris, Hundley, and Larson
(2003).
6
I am grateful to RAND analyst William Rosenau for pointing this out.