mathematical approach to terrorism

I have railed against Bush's policies from the beginning, and don't want to lend them any credibility by such a dispassionate analysis, but in arguing with my law professor/mentor, who is quite possibly the only neo-con for whom I have any respect, this is what I came up with.

Premises:

1 - terrorism is a method not an ideology
2 - sacrificing civil liberties, privacy, resources, or international standing, or pursuing warfare, or torture, or racial profiling could marginally reduce the (R) risk of terrorism by a factor (X)
But, 3 - terrorism is easy; there are so many manifold, emerging, and cheap methods, that its impossible to eliminate the threat completely.
therefore, 4 - it doesn't take special access, knowledge, resources, but only the will to do it.
5 - the policies in 2 cause blowback, by destablizing the countries attacked, galvanizing persons with a worldview supporting terrorist methods, and making life so manifestly cheap to persons vulnerable to such a worldview, that it increases (P) the number of persons with the will to pursue terrorism by a factor (Y).

factors:

R - risk of terrorism
X - factor by which neo-conservative policies might reduce R
P - people with the will to commit a terrorist act
Y - factor by which neo-conservative policies increase P
L - likelihood of a terrorist attack


formula: L = R x P
question: Is RxP > RxX x PxY.

Of course, I think not. But the only argument the neo-conservatives have left is the empirical statement "there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9-11," so, empirically I suppose its still an open question.

But even if neo-conservative policies did reduce the risk, its not worth it. That's another blog.