Terrorism By The Numbers

Assuming that only Islamic Fundamentalists are potential terrorists (and this is a false assumption), a reasonable calculation of the resource pool from which such terrorists might be drawn can be undertaken mathematically as follows.

While disputes exist concerning the total number of Muslims in the world, a round figure often accepted is 1.2 billion. Muslims currently comprise about 22% of the world's population. Since Islam tends to be concentrated, as a majority population, in underdeveloped or poor regions of the world where population growth is higher, the growth rate among Muslims is higher than in Western countries. As a result of this disparity (about 2.2% annual growth versus 2.9% for Muslims), Muslims will comprise approximately 30% of the world's population by the year 2020.

Muslim populations tend to be younger than in the Western countries; for example, in Algeria half the population is under 20, and this is common among all densely populated Muslim areas, such as Iran and Indonesia. Assuming that terror activists tend to be younger rather than older, the cohort "bubble" moving through the population would naturally swell during the next 2 decades or so.

Taking the present numbers (1.2 billion) and assuming that half the population is male (600 million), and assuming that currently one-third of all such males are age-appropriate for terror activism (200 million), and further assuming that only 1% of such males are inclined to act out terroristic tendencies, we have a group of approximately 2 million Muslim young men who might engage in terrorism against the West or within the Muslim world. Further, since the population pressures in the Muslim world are increasing and tilting toward the younger end of the population distribution curve, one would expect the numbers to increase, even holding steady the very conservative 1% guess, especially since this figure is apt to rise as poverty in the Muslim world increases with larger populations and the relative disparity in wealth in West/Asia versus the Muslim world also widens.

Therefore, the "war on terrorism," while useful as a shibboleth or for domestic political purposes in the West, is completely hopeless. Such a conclusion is given enhanced inevitability by noting that nuclear bombs are now proliferating among "rogue" nations, including Pakistan and North Korea, and that nuclear know-how is diffuse among Muslim scientists in former republics of the disbanded U.S.S.R. If the West uses a single instance of a nuclear explosion in the West as the result of terrorist activity as a kind of Rubicon noting the end of civilized life anywhere (which it very well might be), then it seems appropriate to say that such Civilized Life has an expiration date printed on the gable spout of this particular quart of milk in world history, and that date is not very far off.

Therefore, in Game Theory, a different approach is clearly called for. Under an analysis where "realistic" approaches, such as the War on Terror and Getting Tough in general are seen to lead to the inevitable end of Civilized Life, as the above analysis suggests, then ANY approach which offers a promise of sustaining civilized life is by definition more "realistic" and productive. Such an approach has already been described.

Sing the words to John Lennon's "Imagine," take them to heart, and live by them.