Rog
First, that we as humans can dispassionately talk about killing people
within a "game" context may be a fundamental part of the problem. That
being said, Wright's "game" theory is a far cry from the xeroxed picture
that hangs in our local convenience store which is a military weapons
promo picture of a B1 bomber with all it various armament laid out on a
runway around it over which someone put the "gridiron game" title, "The
Taliban has won the toss and has elected to receive."
Second, I think that America is still playing Bin Laden's "game". I
believe he wanted to provoke a military response by America that he
hoped would (will?) in turn galvanize a large portion of the Muslim
world to follow his lead. We responded as he planned, so the first part
of his "game" plan worked. The second part of his plan was and is, if it
happens in the short term, fatally flawed. If tommorrow we wake up to
the news of widespread Muslim revolutions, overthrown governments in
Middle East, and Saudi troops headed towards American airbases and
embassies the terrorist's "game" is over. Because ,without the economic
(particularly materials of war) support of some large block of countries
outside the area, all the Muslim countries in that area together could
not win an all out war with American and its allies by terror or other
means. And, I don't believe they can currently muster that outside
support. However, given the post-war results in Germany and Japan maybe
the Muslims countries would be better off in the long run to "go for
it" anyway ;-)
In Wright's Sept 21st, "Let the Game Theory Begin"
http://nonzero.org/slategametheory.htm, we read,
> In sum, the challenge is to a) deliver negative reinforcement to
> terrorism's elites in ways that minimize the resulting growth of
> anti-Americanism among the world's Muslim masses and; b)
> address the causes of these Muslims' anti-Americanism in ways
>that minimize the positive reinforcement given to terrorism's elites.
> OK, if I'm so smart, what's an example of how you do either of
>these things? Actually, I find examples hard to come by—
Unfortunately like most theories, their help in deciding practical and
pragmatic actions in the face of dynamic reality is often lacking. Thus
he concludes:
> which is why I suggest we think about this whole mess
> long and hard before lurching into a war in Afghanistan.
The problem with this action is that it give positive reinforcement to
terrorism's elites idea that "America is weak willed" and negative
reinforcement to the American people if they start to view their own
government's delay "to talk about it" though the same "weak willed"
lenses.
His last piece,"Muslims and Modernity"
http://nonzero.org/slatemuslims.htm, echos some of the points I tried to
make "MD "Why do they hate us ?" thread.
In the end, while he lays out the issues clearly in a "games" format his
recommended action is, "Hey, let's talk it to death." I'm sure our "war
gamers" have done a similar analysis with many of his points
incorporated, the difference is they have to recommend and implement
actions in real, dynamic time where the luxury of endless talk is not a
viable option.
I think this highlights the difference between a pragmatic and an
idealistic philosophic base.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST