	Introduction

		Scope

This report is designed to help the 110 th Congress better understand the characteristics and importance of measurement of counter-terrorism activities, the dynamics of the phenomenon to be measured, i.e. It is not intended to define counter-terrorism activities, nor to create a definitive, in-depth methodology for measuring progress against terrorism. Impact of Perceptions on Strategy

How one perceives and measures progress is central to formulating and implementing anti-terror strategy. The perception of progress has a major impact on establishing priorities and allocating resources. The parameters used to measure progress can also set the framework for measurement of failures. Positive progress is possible using diverse strategies, which may employ very different tactics. Success at each stage of the process can be measured in various ways, including relatively continuous metrics such as the number of recruits, the dollars expended, the economic value of targets, the number of casualties inflicted, etc. Arguably therefore, it is important not only to measure where terrorism is, but also how close terrorists are to the next quantum jump. Measuring Progress

Progress may be defined differently by the terrorists and those who oppose them. As long as measurements are clearly defined and linked to goals and objectives, these differences need not be divisive. However, a common pitfall is overreliance on quantitative data at the expense of its qualitative significance. Western policymakers often define success in terms of the amount of money confiscated from terrorist networks. To the extent that nations can reach a multilateral consensus concerning shared anti-terror strategies, goals and measurement criteria, the United States may be more successful in obtaining the support and assistance of other nations in anti-terror efforts. Trends

Trends are changes of incidents, attitudes and other factors, over time. Conclusion

Effective responses to terrorism may need to take into account, and to some degree be individually configured to respond to, the evolving goals, strategies, tactics, and operating environment of different terrorist groups. Although terrorism's complex webs of characteristics—along with the inherent secrecy and compartmentalization of both terrorist organizations and government responses—limit available data, the formulation of practical, useful measurement criteria appears both tractable and ready to be addressed.
This report is designed to support efforts of the 110th Congress to understand and apply broad based objective criteria when evaluating progress in the nation's efforts to combat terrorism. It is not intended to define specific, in-depth, metrics for measuring progress against terrorism.
How one perceives and measures progress is central to formulating and implementing anti-terror strategy. Perception has a major impact, as well, on how nations prioritize and allocate resources. On the flip side, the parameters used to measure progress can set the framework for the measurement of failure. The measurement process is also inextricably linked to strategies. Progress is possible using diverse strategies, under very different approaches. The goals of terrorists and those who combat them are often diametrically opposed, but may also be tangential, with both sides achieving objectives and making progress according to their different measurement systems.
Within the context of these competing views and objectives, terrorist activity may be seen as a process which includes discrete, quantum-like changes or jumps often underscoring its asymmetric and nonlinear nature. An approach which looks at continuous metrics such as lower numbers of casualties may indicate success, while at the same time the terrorists may be redirecting resources towards vastly more devastating projects. Policymakers may face consideration of the pros and cons of reallocating more of the nation's limited resources away from ongoing defensive projects and towards preventing the next quantum jump of terrorism, even if this means accepting losses.
Measurement of progress, or lack thereof, may be framed in terms of incidents, attitudes and trends. A common pitfall of governments seeking to demonstrate success in anti-terrorist measures is overreliance on quantitative indicators, particularly those which may correlate with progress but not accurately measure it, such as the amount of money spent on anti-terror efforts. As terrorism is a complex multidimensional phenomenon, effective responses to terrorism may need to take into account, and to some degree be individually configured to respond to, the evolving goals, strategies, tactics and operating environment of different terrorist groups. Although terrorism's complex webs of characteristics—along with the inherent secrecy and compartmentalization of both terrorist organizations and government responses—limit available data, the formulation of practical, useful measurement criteria appears both tractable and ready to be addressed. This report will not be updated.