Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I disagree. It's clear from a glance at the US that non-cooperators can do just fine in a society of mostly cooperators. For example, the tit for tat strategy fails when the non-cooperator can move on after each game and never get punished. Also a cooperating society doesn't imply a tit for tat society. It could as well be a gullible society that continues to give even after getting screwed. Having said that, there appears to be a transition from mostly non-cooperating to mostly cooperating. But it requires having some way to punish those who don't cooperate. If that isn't in place, then I see non-cooperation growing at the expense of cooperation.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 22, 2007 09:21 AM

It's decidedly non-uniform... but then, that's what happens when you throw in a few hundred million real people. The catch is, it doesn't have to be 100% TFT to have a deterrence effect. Look at concealed carry, which in some ways is the ultimate TFT. The ambiguous possibility of being met by lethal TFT makes non-cooperative actions that cross too many lines dangerous.

This is exactly why, also, that I would rather see executives who defraud investors and betray the public trust put away for lengthy sentences. That is far more fair, just, and effective than SOX, which is a nightmare of a burden on all public companies--and, by extension, their investors.

It even ties back in to the fight over the death penalty.

Posted by Big D at May 22, 2007 09:42 AM

Yes Rand, the good news is Anbar is pacified, the bad news is hardly anybody lives there.

One of the biggest problems with Rand's "the glass is half full instead of half empty" analysis is that it doesn't apply to warfare. Wars are won when the enemy stops shooting at you. Not only is the enemy still shooting at us but in greater numbers and to greater effect. For the average Iraqi and the average US soldier, the environment in Iraq is more lethal today than it was during the invasion. Using Rand's analysis applied to say WWII, the germans could have plausibly argued, in 1943 that, except for the collapsing fronts in Africa, Russia, and Italy; they were winning the war because everywhere else it was peaceful. No, that's not a strawman, that's your analysis applied to a different war.

Of course, maybe this isn't a war, maybe it's nationbuilding. The nation of Iraq was damaged goods before we invaded it. We broke it utterly and irretrievably when we invaded it. Throwing more troops at the problem won't fix it. The current policy of holding the warring factions at arms length from one another while we wait for the elected government hiding out in the green zone to get its act together only forestalls the day when the Iraqi's have to take control of their lives. Our presense is a crutch for the Iraqi government and military to lean on. It is not something that I should have to pay for and no Amerian should have to die for.

By any metric; military, political or economic, the country is descending into anarchy despite our, and more likely, because of our presence. The current policy doesn't work and it probably won't work. It's time to consider other options. The whole endeavor was a mistake; staying there won't fix it.

Posted by Jardinero1 at May 22, 2007 01:01 PM

Our presense is a crutch for the Iraqi government and military to lean on.

Exactly as it should be, and the pressure applied to that crutch is lessening every day, as it should. The plan is working.

We broke it utterly and irretrievably when we invaded it.

Utterly, yes, because it needed to be to fix it. Irretrievably is just your perception. My perception is that the people of Iraq are doing fine in their rising as a free people.

It is not something that I should have to pay for and no Amerian should have to die for.

Then you should be happy for tax cuts because you're paying less now. No American should have to die...correct...however, hiding on our own shores with our collective heads in the sand was proven as the wrong way to conduct foreign policy. The insurgents are not Iraqi, so why shouldn't we help our Iraqi friends fight the insurgency of AQ fighters?

By any metric; military, political or economic, the country is descending into anarchy despite our, and more likely, because of our presence.

By any metric you dream up maybe. Iraq is not descending, it appears to be holding in place right now. And its holding in place because we're there helping them. If we pull out, we are defeated, AQ wins and Iraq definitely plunges into anarchy. If you leftists would remember how well "pulling out" effects birth control, you'd be able to see that "pulling out" of Iraq will effectively terminate their chances of being a free nation. But, of course, you don't care about Iraqis because as "elitists", you are all so sure that you are better than them.

Posted by Mac at May 22, 2007 01:35 PM

If Anbar is boring, why doesn't Cheney spend a couple days
there shopping?

Posted by at May 22, 2007 07:43 PM

Mac,

You should quit indulging in make-believe.

At a meeting in mid-April in Geneva, held by António Guterres, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, the numbers presented confirmed that the collapse of Iraq has created a refugee crisis, and that crisis is threatening to precipitate the collapse of the region. The numbers dwarf anything that the Middle East had seen since the the establishment of Israel in 1948. In Syria, there were estimated to be 1.2 million Iraqi refugees. There were another 750,000 in Jordan, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran, 40,000 in Lebanon and 10,000 in Turkey. The overall estimate for the number of Iraqis who had fled Iraq was put at two million by Guterres. The number of displaced Iraqis still inside Iraq’s borders was given as 1.9 million. This would mean about 15 percent of Iraqis have left their homes.

Do the math, in Syria alone what is the ratio of refugees to locals? Now scale that to the US and hopefully you will begin to see some sense.

Incidentally say farewell to Iraqi Christians. That's going to be a future oxymoron.

Sounds just swell doesn't it?

Posted by Offside at May 23, 2007 06:27 AM

[apologies for the double post]

Mac says:

"My perception is that the people of Iraq are doing fine in their rising as a free people."

What he should have said:

"My perception is that the people of Iraq are doing fine in their rising and fleeing Iraq as a free people."

Posted by Offside at May 23, 2007 06:31 AM

collapse of Iraq has created a refugee crisis, and that crisis is threatening to precipitate the collapse of the region.

So we've gone from Iraq descending into anarchy to a region-wide collapse. It seems to me that the government system in effect in the majority of the region are having great difficulty in preventing a collapse of their government system. So, if the systems do collapse, great, our work is truly started then. Introducing Democracy into the region has highly destabilized the region, AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO. AQ and other insurgents are trying to defeat us so that democracy does not happen. Yes, there are a lot of refugees, there always are in warfare.

Posted by Mac at May 23, 2007 10:22 AM

"So, if the systems do collapse, great, our work is truly started then. Introducing Democracy into the region has highly destabilized the region, AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO."

Mac, "Our work is truly started then? "What do you mean? We have the troops to babysit democracy in Syria and Iran? How about what happens in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. What of the Emirates, what of Turkey?

You really find the massive refugee flow, of the most competent Iraqis, the intelligentsia, to be part of our PLAN for the region?

Posted by at May 23, 2007 10:38 AM

Offside,

We should expect a pretty high level of immigration into these countries just due to ex-Baathists from Iraq. After all, if you or a relative were involved even indirectly in murdering your neighbors under Saddam Hussein's reign, then it's no surprise that you'll have to leave the country. I find it interesting that Syria is the top immigrant destination after Jordan. Keep in mind that Baathists were banned from government jobs as well.

I imagine this drove emmigration in the period after the war though it can't be the cause four years later. But it still may explain a good portion of the numbers currently in these countries.

Hmmm, glancing around though, I see a common thread. Family gets booted from their home and rents somewhere else in Iraq while they try to find work in a "neighboring country". Economically, things seem strongly in favor of emmigration. Iraq has a GDP (with purchasing power parity or PPP) of $2900 per capita versus $4000 per capita for Syria and $4900 for Jordan. I imagine someone who owns a home doesn't have incentive to move out of the country. But once that's no longer true, it appears that there's little benefit to staying in Iraq.

So I see two things that would improve the Iraqi situation. First, an increase in the PPP GDP per capita to be at least comparable with neighboring countries. Second, to reduce the incidence of people driven from their homes. Clearly, both depend on some sort of good outcome to the conflict in Iraq.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 23, 2007 12:03 PM

You really find the massive refugee flow, of the most competent Iraqis, the intelligentsia, to be part of our PLAN for the region?

I said the region-wide collapse of the current government systems is part of the plan. Refugees happen in any conflict, but I'll agree with Karl there.

Posted by Mac at May 23, 2007 01:34 PM

Karl, the refugees have NO right to work in any of the countries listed. This isn't the EU. So I don't see them comparing the relative GDPs prior to moving out with a couple of suitcases.

Except for the wealthy Baathists, who probably left shortly after 2003, we are talking about average folks, who are just getting the hell out in huge numbers, comparable to the movement of 30-35 million Americans.

Posted by Offside at May 23, 2007 02:43 PM

Karl, the refugees have NO right to work in any of the countries listed. This isn't the EU. So I don't see them comparing the relative GDPs prior to moving out with a couple of suitcases.

The question isn't whether they have a "right" to work, it is whether they can find work. And it appears to me that they can. I don't say that they compare GDP, that's what I did. My take is that if you're a refugee, then the country with a third or more better GDP per capita stands a really good chance of being the better choice.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 24, 2007 05:13 AM

So by some of your reckoning, Mexico is on the verge of Collapse is it?

I mean with 20 million Mexicans running away from Mexico, it must be on the verge of Collapse.

Or is it? Is it that they can find jobs in America and send money back.

Maybe those people are finding jobs and sending money back. Nah, that could not happen. Why would anyone leave a country. People never illegally come to America from peaceful countries.

Look at Mexico, their Civil War has lasted what? 20 years. Oh wait, they are not having a Civil war.

Dumb. Sometimes people are just dumb. One persons collapsing Government is just a person deciding the grass is greener on the other side of the river if you get my drift.

Offside, can you say for sure they are running from Death and Violence or to a possible job?

Did not think so.

Posted by James Stephenson at May 29, 2007 09:29 AM

With due respect for the UNHCR, which ain't much, if this is truly a far larger scale displacement, from violence, than we've seen before in the ME, where are these refugees taking refuge? We remember from events of the past, like the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that streams of refugees make for big news, mondo footage an camps full of starveling wretches. Has anything like that been on CNN? I guess it's yet another example of the right-wing media covering for that buffoon in the White House. That is IF we take the UNs numbers at face value (are these census type #S? Surveys? Statistical projections and if so, from what?)and deal with the issues raised above re the nature of the refugees. I don't doubt ideological Baathists would be more at home in Syria lately. Is it a bad thing that they have left Iraq? Not in my book.

Posted by megapotamus at May 29, 2007 09:47 AM

An interesting side effect of the iterative Prisoner's dilemma is that the worst losers (the always-forgiving) do almost as well as the [Tit for Tat] in a system that has been tamed by Tit for Tat.

Also, always-forgiving is much intellectually easier than Tit-for-Tat, because you don't need any judgment whatsoever if your response to every situation is the same. Plus, you get to take shots at the [Tit for Tat] folks from your blind, unthinking... err I mean morally superior high horse.

Posted by Manty Five at May 29, 2007 10:32 AM

I guess that's why they're called free riders...

Posted by Manty Five at May 29, 2007 10:34 AM

Is Mexico descending into violence? Well, drug cartel related deaths were at 2000 or so last year and that clip is about the same heading into this year. The violence itself is not only being sustained, but becoming more bitter and horrific as time goes on. In a recent cartel raid by police, 23 died of which 6 were police. Add to that the increase in illegal aliens shifting across the border at what appears to be a faster clip in the last few years and one does begin to wonder what, exactly, is happening to Mexico. With the high levels of corruption in the Federal Police and Military there, and those same organizations offering cover for the drug cartels, the escalation in violence is likely to intensify if the anti-corruption probes can ever get going. That may help alleviate the long-term problem, but is also likely to make things worse in the short term as those officials on the take seek to protect themselves via using violent means.

Iraq, on the other side of the world, has had civil society eroded by three decades of a coercive and brutal one-man rule police state in which mass executions happened and individuals were summarily tortured and executed while being videotaped, so as to send such tapes to the neighborhood of origin or broadcast on television. Some areas of Iraq, like Fallujah, were never well taken care of even with a dictator in power, and accounts dating back to the 1920's indicate that it was very much in a similar state then as to when it was found during the invasion: relatively lawless. Add in Ba'athism eroding society back into the 1960's and unstable rule before then, and the entire question of 'what sort of Nation was Iraq?' seems to be a pretty moot point. While there has been some Nationalism leading up to the Ba'athist era, the single most cohesive force in society has been: surviving.

Governmental rule out of the barrel of a gun was the norm in Iraq for decades. Local government was not trusted as Saddam played the Middle Eastern game of pitting faction against faction and eroding any cohesive trust between them so that his rule would not be threatened. Add to that the work to actually destroy the agricultural sector by Saddam so as to make the population dependent upon government hand-outs, use the central bank as his personal piggy bank, let multiple police and secret police organizations do his bidding with his sons having their *own*... Nation building?

Excuse me for saying so but getting the basics of having a localized civil society that can find a basis for any cooperation between peoples that had been played against each other is something that must be done. The faultlines of culture, religions, ethnicity, tribe, clan and family all criss-cross the Middle East and get a great deal of concentration in its centroid where they are constricted by geography: Iraq. When a society has been so destroyed that the family is the only trustworthy level of government, you are not in a position of 'Nation Building' but of trying to show a people how they can learn to get along with each other. We could use some of that in the United States to set a good example, but it apparently went missing a couple of decades ago.

Apparently that view of how humans can work with each other as a basis of 19th century liberalism has disappeared into the miasma of victimhood multiculturalism, that sees fit to tell who victims are or are not regardless of what has happened to them, of the left today and the strange idea by the right that somehow 'free trade frees people', which seems to allow the enemies of liberty and freedom to arm up cheaply and globally on a very fast basis have *both* replaced that earlier vision of humanity, and both have run their course of failure in Iraq. But then actually reaching a hand out to help a people beset by ills appears to be far too much for the left if America is doing the helping... and the right worries about the cost in dollars and cents when it is the price of liberty and freedom that requires a re-investment in blood and time. We brought down a dictator that was training and helping multiple terrorists groups, and he had no compunctions about gaming the system set up so as to wear down democracies to give into his demands. He left a ticking time bomb in the lack of culture of his people, that must be defused if we hope to have anything better for ourselves in the long run. Too bad so many can not reach a hand out to a people who had been under the dictator's boot and have seen family slaughtered for daring to voice any opinion against such a tyrant.

That is cultural bankruptcy at work: to want to abandon such a people liberated from the tyrants grasp and throw them into perpetual chaos that our enemies will exploit and deeply. That is what happens when one posits that America can do no good: no good gets done.

Posted by ajacksonian at May 29, 2007 10:56 AM

By any metric; military, political or economic, the country is descending into anarchy despite our, and more likely, because of our presence.

According to this source, Iraq's GDP was $59B in 2001, and $87.9B in 2006.

Wars are won when the enemy stops shooting at you.

Iraq's Baathist government doesn't seem to be shooting at anyone, these days.

The whole endeavor was a mistake; staying there won't fix it.

Not many people at the time thought that driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait and counter-invading Iraq was a "mistake". Or by "endeavor" did you mean the 1991 ceasefire? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the 1991-2003 air war against Baathist Iraq? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the September 1996 US/UK air campaign to protect our Kurdish allies? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the December 1998 US/UK air campaign to destroy Iraq's military infrastructure ahead of a land campaign by thousands of US troops? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the February 2001 US/UK air campaign to destroy Iraq's air defense system? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the March-May 2003 US/UK land campaign against the Baathist government? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the May 2003-June 2004 did you mean the coalition occupation of Iraq? Or by "endeavor" did you mean the June 2004-present support of the Iraqi government?

The vague cliches get so confusing.

Posted by Sartorius at May 29, 2007 11:03 AM

Iraq is a nation of some 25 million individuals. We don't know the combined size of all of the groups that oppose the new government there, but it's very likely to be considerably less than one percent. Those who look at the violence in Iraq and conclude that they aren't fit for modern civilization aren't taking into account how susceptible a modern society is to violent disruption. At its height in the 80's, for example, the IRA had fewer than 250 active "soldiers" at arms, Yet look at the decades chaos they created. Hell, at one point they were lobbing mortars out of the back of vans on Downing Street. For another example, look at the chaos accomplished by one trigger man, one spotter, one rifle and a Chevy Impala created in the DC area a few years ago.

If western civilization is going to make it any further down the road we have to quit being willing to write off entire societies based on the existence of relatively tiny groups of Bad Guys in their midsts.

yours/
peter.

Posted by peter Jackson at May 29, 2007 01:03 PM

Great post, Sartorius, but your link to the GDP info didn't come along for the ride...

Posted by Mary in LA at May 29, 2007 01:03 PM

Good responses, Mac, but don't work up a sweat. In all of offside's posts he never once acknowledged the existence of any information that wasn't to his liking. He wants to contradict, not discuss. When s/he can respond to the offered information with even a pretend risk/benefit, plus/minus analysis, there will be plenty of time to discuss things then.

Even better, offside, can you articulate fairly the premise you are attacking?

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at May 29, 2007 02:10 PM

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?

It is, or at least, we were. In the absence of evolutionary pressures, it seems it is evolving into a culture of "tits."

I'm hoping this is temporary.

Posted by Thief at May 29, 2007 02:26 PM

Post a comment