Are We Winning?

The “war on terror” has morphed from an imprecise, but comprehensible, concept into little more than a cudgel to be wielded in American domestic political debates by both the left and the right. What ought to be a policy debate over threats and consequences, risks and capabilities, ends and means is instead, too often, an opportunistic weapon used without reference to logic or facts in order to gain political advantage. The result is a dizzying set of changing assessments that encourage skepticism and cynicism instead of consistency and clarity.

Ultimately, any approach to the challenge posed by violent jihadists must acknowledge several basic propositions:
 
First, the threat is very real and likely to endure.
 
Second, any progress is likely to be incremental and will require years
of prudence and consistency to institutionalize.
 
Third, our adversaries are strategically savvy and will continually adapt
to our actions to achieve their goals. Complacency can quickly turn
into catastrophe.
 
Our goal in the "Are We Winning?" series is to provide empirical data as the
foundation of reasoned discussion and principled debate. To this end, the
American Security Project has developed ten criteria to measure progress
– or lack of progress – in the struggle against violent jihadism. These metrics
are designed to be both reproducible and as objective as possible. They are
intended to comprise a holistic approach, examining causes and processes
associated with violent jihadism, in addition to outcomes.

Read the press release here.