A lot has been made recently about the Terrorism Futures Market that recently got cancelled. It was a DARPA experiment attempting to let economic forces predict upheavals in the Middle East.
The Policy Analysis Market, which was set to begin signing up “investors� on Friday, was designed to let Middle East experts place bets on political and economic events in the Middle East, according to Charles Polk, president of Net Exchange, a small San Diego, Calif. company hired by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, to set up the market.
[snip]
By placing thousands of individual bets, the thinking went, market participants would shape forecasts about future events. The value of the contracts would fluctuate based on market participants’ beliefs about the likelihood of specific events taking place — moving higher if they appeared likely and lower if unlikely. Contracts would expire quarterly and extend a year and a half into the future. Each contract would be fully valued at $1 — the payoff for an accurate prediction.[snip]
“This isn’t really a terrorism market,� Polk said Monday. “What we’re trying to do is look forward a year into the future and try to glean some insight into political and economic and military currents in the Middle East.
Much of the criticism brands the scheme as “incentive to commit acts of terrorism” as Tom Dachale said. Horsepucky! This was a smart way to try unconventional methods against unconventional warfare: terrorism. The participants were Middle Eastern scholars, hardly the type to commit terrorism. Frankly, with their payoff being all of one dollar, I don’t think you have to worry about this program spawning new terrorists.
It’s a shame that smart, unconventional thinking like this gets distorted and blown totally out of proportion. I welcome new ways of predicting unrest. We cannot apply the old, rigid thinking that worked against our old enemies (the USSR, for instance) and expect it to work against the shadowy terrorists. Programs like PAM would likely glean intelligence that our current sources wouldn’t pick up.
Being typically skeptical of the government, I find myself defending it on this one. It’s a different world we live in now – one that plays by different rules. We must be flexible in our thinking if we are to survive in it.