Strategic cluelessness, game theory, and U.S. actions in Iraq
Much could be talked about with regards to the actions the United States has taken in the Middle East. From the conspiracy theories about them to the, for lack of a better word, interesting forms of support they have provided to Middle Eastern and Arab countries, the United States has managed to keep its name mentioned as a household staple for many years. Although, in theory, the U.S. has maintained that its role is as a helpful supervisor, the actions taken by many military individuals – and the initial lack of response of the American public about these actions – has provided us with a particularly judging eye towards further action. Some of these actions could provide an interesting outlook into the world of strategic cluelessness and what happens when you don’t consider the other players in game theory.
The Iraq war has been a long and complicated conflict with many reasons for civilian deaths to ensue; however, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has only added to the complication of the events. According to Statista, between the periods of 2003 until 2008 (since, afterwards, Barack Obama made attempts at returning some American troops back), 4222 American soldiers were killed in Iraq. The number of Iraqi civilians who were killed, meanwhile, is 106,318. After American soldier involvement began to decrease, civilian Iraqis killed over the next five-year period period dropped to 21,179 deaths. That’s 19.92 percent of the deaths. There are many factors that have led to this decrease in Iraqi deaths over the years other than the decrease in U.S. soldiers; however, these numbers are still too high to ignore. Even in checkpoints for cars, many civilian deaths occurred due to a simple lack of communication. One of the reasons this situation played out as it has must have been due to strategic cluelessness.
Strategic cluelessness happens when a person in power refuses – or is unable to – place themselves in the perspective of the person in front of them. One of the examples that Micheal Chwe illustrates in his book is particularly relevant to the Middle Easat - American checkpoints in Iraq. When U.S. soldiers shoot Iraqi civilians driving their cars past a checkpoint, not only are they traumatized but they are also unaware of why the civilians don’t stop – for a civilian to know what to do, they would need to be told what to expect. Since the soldiers already know what to expect, they cannot place themselves in the perspective of someone who doesn’t (Chhwe, 2013), and as such are consistently confused as to why people don’t simply stop at the checkpoint and fall back on their ‘only’ option: shooting the civilian in front of them. While the U.S. has gone back and attempted to train soldiers once more to decrease the risk of civilian death, strategic cluelessness played a role in these deaths as officials refuse to risk placing themselves in the shoes of whom they may or may not proceed to kill.
This cluelessness manifests itself as an important idea discussed in economics: game theory. Game theory is a framework used to reach the optimal decision, assuming all players are rational*. For simplicity, let’s assume that there are only two players. Each player has an optimal outcome and a worse-off outcome (optimal or worse-off for themselves only). Often, the optimal outcome of player A will result in a terrible outcome for player B, and the opposite is true. If both players choose the okay outcome for themselves (which, often, results in the same or similarly okay outcome for the opposing player) they will both be on relatively equal ground. If they both choose the best possible outcome for themselves, they will often both lose the game. The catch; however, is that neither side knows what to expect from the other side – and both players want the best possible outcome. This theory has been portrayed in many examples, it can be seen used on game shows, the prisoner’s dilemma, and simply in your decision making in everyday life. Strategic cluelessness arises as individuals blind themselves of the other player and instead keep choosing their own best possible outcome, often ending up worse off for all of those engaged in the game.
Although strategic cluelessness arises in many situations, the rise in civilian deaths is one of those situations that is constantly needing to be addressed. The U.S. has published its Integrated Country Strategy with regards to their further role in the situation in Iraq, with one of the main goals being humanitarian assistance and job growth, and hopefully these new goals will keep strategic cluelessness in mind when approaching new grounds. Hopefully, everyone can come out of this with a best possible outcome – it’s not a game when people’s lives are at stake.
Notes for further understanding:
*rational decision makers are those who make decisions towards the best possible outcome
Sources
Chwe, Michela. “Real-World Cluelessness.” Jane Austen, Game Theorist, 2013.
Hayes, Adam. “How Game Theory Works.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 5 Feb. 2020, www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gametheory.asp.
United States, Congress, “Integrated Country Strategy.” Integrated Country Strategy, Iraq ed., 2018.
“Iraq: U.S. Checkpoints Continue to Kill.” Human Rights Watch, 23 Sept. 2008, www.hrw.org/news/2005/05/03/iraq-us-checkpoints-continue-kill#.
Statista Research Department. “American Soldiers Killed in Iraq up to 2019.” Statista, 4 June 2019, www.statista.com/statistics/263798/american-soldiers-killed-in-iraq/.
Statista Research Department. “Civilian Deaths in Iraq War 2003-2020.” Statista, 6 Mar. 2020, www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/.
