Bill Whittle’s latest essay reminds me of this post that I wrote a couple years ago on the pacification of Iraq:

One of the interesting things about [Tit for Tat] is that the more similar algorithms it has to deal with, the better it does. Put in an environment of non-cooperators, it has a much harder time, but it can still be more successful than them, and if it has a few others to cooperate with, it can survive even in a sea of non-cooperators.

Non-cooperators, on the other hand, don’t do well in a cooperative society. A non-nice strategy (one that always, or occasionally, or randomly defects unprovoked) won’t do well in a world of TFTs, because after the first time they get screwed by it, they will not cooperate with it again, at least until it changes its ways. So while it gets a big payoff the first time, it gets a much smaller one in subsequent exchanges, whereas the TFTs interacting with each other always get the medium benefit.

Thus, it’s possible for a small group of cooperators to “colonize” a larger group of non-cooperators, and eventually take it over, whereas a group of non-cooperators invading a larger group of cooperators will not thrive, and will eventually die out. This is the basis for Axelrod’s (and others’) claim that there is evolutionary pressure for cooperation to evolve.

This may hold the key to fixing Iraq, and ultimately the Middle East. While there’s a lot of bad news coming from that country right now, the fact remains that much of it is calm and at peace–that part doesn’t make the news. It may be that nationwide elections won’t be possible in January, but certainly it should be for some regions (particularly the Kurdish region).

In fact, there were national elections in January. But this provides a possible key to a metric of success. Instead of counting suicide bombings and violence levels (which the terrorists can maintain at an almost arbitrary level as long as there are a few of them around, due to entropy), as the media does (because if it bleeds it leads), it would be more useful to measure how small an area they appear in, and how large a one is relatively peaceful, as Anbar now seems to be, based on Michael Yon’s reports of boredom there.

[Update a few minutes later]

Hmmmm…just one more thought. Is the Anglosphere a “tit for tat” culture and legal system? I wonder if it’s ever been discussed over here?