Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3

Posted by Marcus G. Daniels-3 on Aug 08, 2006; 5:32am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Friam-Digest-Vol-38-Issue-3-tp522318p522351.html

Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Try predicting the repeat offences of individual criminals.  It's not possible.
>  
I'm actually not suggesting predicting anything on a individual level,
except to the extent that ex-officio roles like Olmert, Nasrallah,
Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, and Bush would probably need to be modeled.  I'm
suggesting predicting trends in a set of subpopulations over time.   The
primary purpose of a model like this would be to make aggregate
predictions about the cascade of events from a significant event.  
Secondarily, because getting fine-grained data on how  events actually
transpire is hard, a simulation facilitates what-if exploration of a
tactical and strategic space, given an array of made-up but plausible
group reaction functions.

Zbigniew Brzezinski might have pondered "if we fund the Mujahideen to
fight the Soviets, what's the likelihood these people will endure and
extend their narcissistic rage toward the United States [as
Al-Qaeda]".   Or the Mossad might have thought more carefully about how
much rope they extended to the Hamas.   A computer simulation that
tracked these organizations as existing and intermixing with the general
population (trying to spread their message) could provide some risk
profile for the kind of damage they could do.  It would at least remind
elected officials in later years of the fact they exist at all.

One place to start would be to use signals intelligence to infer a
network of communication patterns.   Then on that network overlay
representative agents that have some capability set, depth of funding,
human resources, and degree of extremism or political agendas.  The
overall political climate would determine what rate volunteers could be
recruited, and the organizational types would determine where they went.
  (That goes for all sides.)  For example, we keep hearing analysts
saying how Israel has polarized the Lebanese to the point that now
Hezbollah is popular.   Perhaps that fades away fast, or perhaps it
collapses in a month or two of intensive destruction, or perhaps it
intensifies and mobilizes a larger set of fighters.  Point is, it's
surely got some scaling and dynamics -- mad people create dynamics at
least so long as they are alive.

I see such a model as sort of thermometer to answer questions like:

 Who is mad
 What are they doing now (as a group, relevant to the conflict)
 What could they do in the next week, month & year, if they achieve it
 What can't they do in the next week, month & year if they are stopped
 Where are they
 Who are they connected to as allies and as enemies
 What do they want
 What do they need
 What do they believe and how mutable is it

Some of these things will change over time, some of may have narrow
variances some of them wide.   But hit it hard enough, or wait for
someone else to, and something has got to give.  If some of those shifts
are predictable, then that's potentially usable for decision makers.  
It doesn't mean it all has to be predictable.  It doesn't matter what
virtual soldier Shlomo is having for lunch (unless perhaps he shows up
on CNN).  The parts that are hopeless can be discarded and the parts
that show utility can be elaborated.  But this is not like medicine
where doing harm is avoided.  No, in our world it seems to be the norm
to futz with the patient using blunt dirty instruments and see what
happens (and then sometimes bother to write it down).

Marcus