{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02452937820878494, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007415858528237307, 'mean_word_length': 5.694656488549619, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating Counter-IED Strategies

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are one of the largest threats facing coalition forces in current military conflicts. The United States and other nations are greatly invested in mitigating these deadly devices. Past results have shown that completely technological counter-IED (cIED) efforts will be insufficient and, therefore, attention is focusing on augmenting the technological methods with neutralizing factors that contribute to human involvement in the IED perpetration process.To do so successfully requires an understanding of the behavioral aspects and influences of human involvement.This has led to an interest in socio-technical and systems-based models of terrorist activity. By integrating behavioral aspects of adversarial activities with computational methods, a greater understanding of these activities can be attained; simultaneously, potentially effective intervention points can be ascertained.This is often accomplished by modeling individuals, organizations, and societies via the creation of micro-, meso-, and macro-scale models to analyze and experiment with the impact of potential influences on population behavior. In addition to providing insight, model flexibility and model dynamics are required to assessmultiple interpretations of situations as they play out over time. Static models often cannot achieve this since disparate motivations and ideological factors evolve as a function of time. This article focuses on modeling the IED perpetration process, where knowledge was provided by subject matter experts (SMEs) from the United States and the United Kingdom, to ascertain behavioral aspects of cIED efforts. Defense & Security AnalysisVol. 27, No. 2, pp. 135–147, June 2011