Cozy Corner: Game Theory and Hizb'allah

Slate ponders:

CAN GAME THEORY SOLVE THE ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR?

Israel's strategy for dealing with Hezbollah has been called "tenfold deterrence": Any attack will be met with a far more forceful counterattack. Unfortunately both for Israelis and Lebanese, the strategy did not deter Hezbollah's missiles.

Unfortunately, that is the entire extent of Tim Harford's coverage of the Middle East; the rest of his article talks a bit about the Prisoner's Dilemma, and various strategies for winning it.

Craig Newmark answers simply:

No.

I somewhat agree with Craig; but I can easily assert that this isn't a simple game of Prisoner's Dilemma. In most games, the two players are, effectively, interchangeable; that is, the game assumes that each has the same win condition. In this case, however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Terrorists (Hizb'allah, Hamas, Fatah) have a simple win condition: destroy Israel. From their actions, we can infer that while there are milestone wins (gain land; convince Israel not to fight back; gain recruits; convince the West that Israel is evil), there really are no constraining conditions (survive; protect others).

Israel's win condition is equally simple: survive. However, Israel has a lot of constraining conditions: remain a moral country; remain a Jewish nation; function as a democracy governed by a code of laws; protect Israeli civilians; minimize harm to non-Israeli civilians; stay in the good graces of the Anglo Alliance).

Any approach to modeling this in game theory must take this into account. For instance, an endstate of "the world blows up" is actually a win for the terrorists (there may be no more Muslims, but we got the Jews!). Interestingly, if the Terrorists stop playing the game, Israel wins.

So while I don't think that game theory can solve the crisis, it could lead to a deeper understanding of the crisis. I'd be interested to see an analysis of the board, frankly.

Comments

I suppose that Prof Auman would have his own ideas on the topic of game theory and Israel.

Posted by: soccerdad | August 8, 2006 03:27 PM

Heh.

I refer you to my article on this subject on my blog: Misappropriating the Word "Game".

In the July archives.

As to the simple answer, it is always easier to destroy than to protect or to create. A lesson learned from "Old Man and the Sea", by Ernest Hemmingway.

Yehuda

Posted by: Yehuda Berlinger | August 14, 2006 04:05 AM

Here's Yehuda's post.

Yehuda, while I like the tenor of your post (and a whole site dedicated to gaming!), I think I have to disagree on two points. First off, game theory, while applicable to real world situations, is actually designed around constrained, rules-based games; we can then use the lessons of the Prisoner's Dilemma in real life.

Second, aren't games really just derivatives of war, anyway? That actually makes the application of "game" to "war" completely appropriate!

Posted by: Andy | August 14, 2006 07:28 AM