Patterico's Pontifications

10/2/2004

Iraq Game Theory Follow Up

Filed under: War — Charlie (Colorado) @ 5:42 am



Many of the comments to my earlier post on games theory as applied to Iraq proceed on the premise that that France, Germany and Russia did NOT want Hussein removed from power and/or that France, for example, was more interested in serving as a counterforce to the United States than helping out in Iraq.

Which of course, is what I believe to be the case. But I was looking at how unlikely it would have been for any President have enlisted FG&R to help out – even if FG&R did want Hussein out of power.

This is why I believe Kerry’s complaints aren’t valid (this is not to say they’re not working on the campaign trail). For if FG&R were truly opposed to Hussein’s removal, then no amount of diplomacy would have been successful in getting them to abandon their positions.

And, if FG&R were open to the idea of getting rid of Hussein, then I believe that my previous post shows how the outcome – the US going it alone – was predetermined and I thus am unable to imagine what Kerry could have done to change the outcome.

5 Responses to “Iraq Game Theory Follow Up”

  1. There ius not doubt in my mind, having lived and worked in Europe for seventeen years – all of themn with non US companies – that France was unalterablky opposed to Hussein’s removal.

    I know firsthand that French banks, and one in particular, played the largest role by far in financing oil cargoes around the world. A legitimate business at which they excelled.

    There were, however, aspects of that business that were not legitimate. Such as breaching, no, flouting, the UN oil sanctions on South Africa.

    Interesting that one of the principals involved in that traffic was agentleman named Marc Rich.

    There is no doubt in my mind, given the very high level of technical financial skill possessed by the French bank in question, and its subsidiary in Switzerland, that the French were complicit in the Oil for Food Program breaches.

    This is “big business”. There was no way any diplomacy by the US was ever going to affect French foreign policy towards Iraq while Saddam was in power.

    And there was in addition the longstanding personal relationship between Chirac and Saddam.

    Mr Kerry is not only posturing, he is dissmulating.

    And he knows it.

    Leigh (a60f37)

  2. Steve

    I just posted to your original posting. In general, France is all about power, prestige, and money. They could have been bought, but at what price? Between Germany’s pacificism and Schroeder’s promise not to contribute troops, you could have bought their acceptance, not troops, if their big sister France was on board. Russia’s acceptance could have likewise been bought, but I doubt we would have wanted any troops.

    MaDr (08c688)

  3. “Which of course, is what I believe to be the case. But I was looking at how unlikely it would have been for any President have enlisted FG&R to help out – even if FG&R did want Hussein out of power.”

    I think the theory rests on the idea that the Free Rider’s decision to deny support or assistance is that to do so does not incur negative consequences which would outweigh any consequence of participating.

    If my house is burning and I and my neighbors form a bucket brigade, the Free Rider theory implies that I, myself, might even willfully pull up a chair and relax while they do all the work. After all, they have to worry about the fire spreading to their houses. Anyone capable of reason will conclude that I have the primary interest in putting out the fire.

    So, we can reasonably expect that he with a primary interest will not relax his efforts with the advent of assistance from others. What about the ‘others’?

    My direct neighbor has, arguably, only slightly less interest in containing the fire. Any small negligence or slacking on his part will directly affect his interest, ie: his home.

    My neighbors at the far end of the block can safely expect that his direct interest will not be threatened at all, however. Why should he not decline to assist, then? Because his good will, now, places obligation upon the rest to likewise assist him should HIS abode ever be threatened.

    The Free Rider theory, then, would seem only to apply to one who has NO interest in the outcome, in which case he is not a rider, at all.

    My point is that, if you accept my reasoning, you must conclude that G,F,R felt that the intervention was against their interests and that to act other than they did would be to act against their own interests.

    Or, perhaps I’ve missed your point completely. (chuckle)

    Regards…

    Thomas Hazlewood (8c22f4)

  4. I think that G & F have another important reason for not sending troops now or ever. They can’t afford it. They might have enough troops, but they don’t have enough working equipmnet or supplies and couldn’t field a fighting force if their lives depended on it.

    I think this is the main reason the Europeans let the whole Kosovo/Serbia/Croatia genocide thing spiral out of control and waited for the Americans to come over.

    G & F know that talk is cheap, especially when you can’t fight a friggin’ war anymore.

    Remy Logan (328fb7)

  5. I agree that’s a reason not to materially help Remy, I follow German current events and I’d say they would be stretched to do anything useful.

    But…
    Why didn’t they expend the cheap talk that they could?
    The US isn’t going to blast them if they said “Look, that looks like a fine plan, sorry, we can’t help right now.” or even “We’re against this _because_ we can’t afford to help right now.”

    Instead the German’s schtick is “We’re against this because your leader is too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. He reminds us of someone local who was an evil genius. No, we don’t see a contradiction.”

    Al (98e4ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0707 secs.