Iraq Poker

**ArmchairGeneral** · 07 Feb 09,, 05:57

This is one of the best pieces on the Iraq War I've read in a while.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WY1ZDU=&w=MA==

Here's the first few paragraphs:

George Bush is gone but the Iraq War lingers. President Obama wants to expand the war in Afghanistan with an Iraq-style surge. We will be thinking about these things a while longer, and we might as well think thoughtfully.

That requires abandoning the sloganeering and false certainties that have disfigured our debate. To try to show you what I mean, I will try to show you the complexity of a particular view of Iraq, namely my own. I won’t be able fully to defend it, but that’s all right—first because I hold it quite tentatively (this will be part of my point), and second because my purpose is not to persuade you to accept my view so much as to offer an evaluative framework from which you might arrive at many views.

When I hear people talking about Iraq, what strikes me is that they just know they’re right. What’s more, they can prove that they’re right in a few sentences. Our nation, founded by geniuses and statesmen, has evolved to the point where every third person is a genius and a statesman. It is impressively democratic.

My message to every third person is: Renounce your hubris! Foreign policy is not a matter of making obviously sound inferences after examination of incontrovertible facts from a temporally fixed viewpoint. It’s not a science. It’s not even a social science.

What it is is a poker game.

**Shek** · 07 Feb 09,, 13:26

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

This is one of the best pieces on the Iraq War I've read in a while.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WY1ZDU=&w=MA==

Here's the first few paragraphs:

I'd have to take issue with his social science comment. Between his use of psychology, economics, and political science and the following construct,

"War is the continuation of politics through other means " - famous Prussian
+
The study of politics is social science - definition
=
"War is armed social science" - semi-famous contemporary Australian

I'd most certainly proclaim that social science is an excellent lens to use.

**Herodotus** · 20 Feb 09,, 07:51

Originally Posted by Shek

I'd have to take issue with his social science comment. Between his use of psychology, economics, and political science and the following construct,

"War is the continuation of politics through other means " - famous Prussian
+
The study of politics is social science - definition
=
"War is armed social science" - semi-famous contemporary Australian

I'd most certainly proclaim that social science is an excellent lens to use.

Absolutely, though we can dispense with that psychology mumbo jumbo

**Shek** · 21 Feb 09,, 12:51

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Absolutely, though we can dispense with that psychology mumbo jumbo

It's not psychology, but logic

If A and B, then C

**ArmchairGeneral** · 21 Feb 09,, 18:50

Not perzackly. Only if politics itself is social science, as opposed to political science, is the argument valid.

Of course, since I study biology, I'm rather biased against social science any way. It ain't real science.

**zraver** · 22 Feb 09,, 02:49

Originally Posted by Shek

It's not psychology, but logic

If A and B, then C

Careful of the transitive fallacy. What did you mean?

I'd argue political rather than social science (sociology) might be a better lens. If we treat each faction in the Iraqi poker game as a political party then it makes sense in a lot of cases. After all war is the continuation of politics by other means. This implies the same type of objective seeking and out look on the world by the parties involved. One of the big problems all parties seem to have is the beleif in a zero sum game. If Bush gets his agenda we lose, if Obama gets his agenda we lose, if the Sunni's get more oil we lose, If the Shia get more oil we lose. Everyone seems to approache the issues as problems.

**Shek** · 22 Feb 09,, 13:00

Originally Posted by zraver

Careful of the transitive fallacy. What did you mean?

I'd argue political rather than social science (sociology) might be a better lens. If we treat each faction in the Iraqi poker game as a political party then it makes sense in a lot of cases. After all war is the continuation of politics by other means. This implies the same type of objective seeking and out look on the world by the parties involved. One of the big problems all parties seem to have is the beleif in a zero sum game. If Bush gets his agenda we lose, if Obama gets his agenda we lose, if the Sunni's get more oil we lose, If the Shia get more oil we lose. Everyone seems to approache the issues as problems.

Social science is a broad umbrella and not just sociology.

**Herodotus** · 22 Feb 09,, 20:14

Originally Posted by Shek

It's not psychology, but logic

If A and B, then C

Well I was referring to psychology in general being categorized as a social science, I'm not a big fan of it.

Originally Posted by zraver

I'd argue political rather than social science (sociology) might be a better lens. If we treat each faction in the Iraqi poker game as a political party then it makes sense in a lot of cases. After all war is the continuation of politics by other means. This implies the same type of objective seeking and out look on the world by the parties involved. One of the big problems all parties seem to have is the beleif in a zero sum game. If Bush gets his agenda we lose, if Obama gets his agenda we lose, if the Sunni's get more oil we lose, If the Shia get more oil we lose. Everyone seems to approache the issues as problems.

Social science includes: political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, history, and psychology-though I could do without psychology.

**Shek** · 22 Feb 09,, 21:01

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Social science includes: political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, history, and psychology-though I could do without psychology.

I think the intersection of economics and psychology with behavorial economics is fascinating. However, I'd agree that some psychology (just as with any pure academic work) is just pure babble

**Swift Sword** · 23 Feb 09,, 14:09

Originally Posted by Shek

I'd most certainly proclaim that social science is an excellent lens to use.

Sir,

Seems to me that the social science subset/overlap with military science might have some bearing on the situation.

Mr. Steorts' writing is eloquent enough and at some levels makes some sense yet all he has really done is over complicate and slightly mystify the matter. The subject, after all, is war, so why beat around the bush?

War in general, especially in its aspect as a policy in and of itself as well as its effect on policy, appears to be a fairly well understood phenomenon.

We can conjure up all the images we want of Mr. Bush's Cabinet meetings and attempt to romanticize the thought processes of the CINC but what it really boils down to is what would...say...Liu Bocheng do?

Regards,

William