Network analysis

Wretchard has quite a fascinating and informative post about the relationship of state sponsorship of terrorism to optimum size of terrorist cells. He sums up an article by John Robb on the The Optimal Size of a Terrorist Network this way.

His last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly. Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or "holy places" is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes "America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world" inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.

It's my view that the ramp up of violence and terrorism in Iraq has been encouraged by this presidential election. I doubt that it Iraq would appear to be in such disarray if the President's challenger were someone genuinely perceived to be tough on terrorism and willing to win in Iraq. While the increase in terrorist violence may be inspired by their hope that Kerry will be elected, and as president he will capitulate, the terrorists also have their eyes on the strategic value of Iraq to global terror. They need their state sponsor. Read the whole thing.