President Obama announced Friday
that he had authorized the deployment of 1,500 additional American troops to
Iraq in order to fight the Islamic State (Cooper & Shear, 2014). In an
interview with Face the Nation on Sunday, the President said this is not a sign
the US strategy against ISIS is failing, but rather that “the campaign is
entering a new phase” (Pearson, 2014).
But how should the United States strategize to fight an enemy such as
ISIS? ISIS desires to gain territory in the Middle East, establish an Islamic
state there, and exact revenge on the United States, no
matter what the costs may be (Johnson, 2014). Therefore, fighting ISIS can be
represented by a game of chicken. In this essay, I will compare the conflict
between the Untied States and the Islamic State to a game of chicken, which may
shed some light on the current crisis and America’s response.
ISIS is a group of Islamic
extremists that emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq (Beauchamp, 2014). ISIS operates
under a “deviant and pathological” interpretation of Islam, one that the vast
majority of Muslims worldwide are appalled by (Johnson, 2014). They are extremely
determined to accomplish their goals, and their tactics are even so extreme
that al-Qaeda broke with the group in February 2014 (Beauchamp, 2014).
Religiously motivated groups such as ISIS are often the most passionate, and
the least willing to compromise. ISIS has also proved time and time again that
they are willing to go to extremes in order to send a message or accomplish
their goals. ISIS often acts employs
suicide bombers and kills Muslim civilians that will not follow them (Beauchamp,
2014). After journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS in August, the group
warned America, "WE WILL NOT STOP UNTILL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR
BLOOD" (Johnson, 2014).
ISIS clearly poses a serious threat
to both U.S. security, and innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria. By no means do
I intend to downplay the importance of this issue. But, the situation does
share many similarities with the chicken example we discussed in class. As I
have demonstrated, ISIS is more concerned with achieving its goals and proving
its point than it is with its own survival. In this way, it can be compared to
a drunken man who is willing to risk death in order to protect his reputation.
Following this example, ISIS (Player 1) would always stay straight. This leaves
the United States two options: also stay straight, or swerve. Should the United
States stay straight, this would achieve the min-max equilibrium of the game.
This was represented by (-500,-500) in the example. If the United States
swerves, ISIS will enjoy a gain of +5, while America will suffer a loss of -5.
In real life terms, the United States “staying straight” would mean a full out
military assault on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It would require continual
airstrikes, thousands more U.S. troops, and who knows how many dollars spent,
and the U.S. would not stop until ISIS was completely destroyed. There could be
no remnants of ISIS influence left anywhere in the region. “Swerving” would
mean backing down on the vow President Obama made in September 2014 to defeat
ISIS. It would save American lives and dollars, but would harm Obama’s
credibility. If America’s threats are
not taken seriously by its enemies, the U.S. could be put at greater risk for
attack. Obama also would generally look weak on the world stage. ISIS, on the
other hand, could continue its fight to restore the caliphate, gain followers,
and plot against the United States.
Game theory would suggest that the
United States should therefore “stay straight,” and devote all necessary
resources to defeating ISIS. Personally, I believe that since Obama has already
vowed to destroy ISIS, he has limited his option to swerve. However, it is
important to reduce the costs of fighting ISIS as much as possible, as the
president will quickly lose the support of a casualty-averse general
population.
Sources:
Beauchamp,
Z. (9 Oct. 2014). 17 Things About ISIS and Iraq You Need To Know. Vox.com.
Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro.
Cooper,
H. & Shear, M.D. (7 Nov. 2014). Obama to Send 1,500 More
Troops to Assist Iraq. The New York Times. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html?_r=0
Johnson,
M.A. (3 Sept. 2014). 'Deviant and Pathological': What Do ISIS Extremists Really Want?
NBC News. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/deviant-pathological-what-do-isis-extremists-really-want-n194136
Pearson,
M. (9 Nov. 2014). ISIS Fight in New Phase, Obama Says. CNN. Retrieved 9 Nov.
2014 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/09/world/meast/isis-threat/
I find your argument for how chicken can related to the ISIS crisis to be extremely compelling. I think it can be used to understand how a lot of interaction with terrorist groups are handled. I agree with the various consequences, but I feel like the U.S. approach may be a bit different. I feel like the United States at first will want to go "halfway" into the chicken. I do not know if there is a term for that, maybe side swiping the car? No idea, but the point is that the U.S. doesn't want to get fully invested but they do not want to look weak in front of the international world.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see what would happen if the U.S. did nothing, because although they may look weak, not taking the threat seriously might discredit some terrorist groups.
You're definitely right that the US's preferred strategy is to act somewhere in the middle of these extremes (not sure how that would fit into the chicken metaphor either). I think in this case doing nothing could actually benefit the U.S. in the long-run, but it would leave us extremely vulnerable for the time being. This is often the case in counterterrorism: similarly, stopping all drone strikes would hinder terrorist groups' recruiting ability and end a domestic debate, but it would also mean letting known terrorists go free. That's the problem with these chicken like scenarios.
DeleteInteresting! These games usually assume rational actors. Are we interpreting ISIS as a rational actor? And how do we take into account the power differential? Does that change the payoffs in the situation, or is the default chicken game still fairly applicable ?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the main idea of your post. One thing I would note is the impact of domestic politics on President Obama's decision. I would wonder if the fact that the president is not running for election again has an impact on where he "swerves" or not. While I do agree there would be consequences if the president reverts from his initial strategy, I do not think those consequences would be nearly as severe as they would be if it were his first term and he were up for reelection in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting how ISIS is basically the more extreme version of Al Qaeda and ISIS kills fellows Muslims because some refuse to follow them however, “do they attack Al Qaeda for not following ISIS?” It’s maybe a bit of a stretch to say they not as concerned about their survival however, because they use their extremism to get media time which they use to actively recruit new members to take the places of those suicide bombers and others to continue ISIS because there’s always power in numbers. However, I definitely do understand your point.
ReplyDeleteIt was a great analogy between the chicken game and President’s Obama decision to “declare war” on ISIS and how audience cost can also influence his remaining options.