UCD Clinton Institute for American Studies, Ireland
The United States and Iraq:
Reflections and Projections
Conference
The United States’ Dilemma: Political Isolation and
Consequent Failure unless they Cooperate Internationally
Prof. Cathal M. Brugha
[email protected] Tel.++353-1-7064708
School of Business, University College Dublin, Ireland.
This presentation can be found at
http://mis.ucd.ie/Members/cbrugha/pubs
Abstract. This paper uses Nomology, a decision science
approach to structuring qualitative decisions, to show that
international conflict can be presented as a set of fifteen
interlocking dilemmas.
Eight of these are Unilateralism
(Backlash), Negotiation (Recognition), Credibility (Awareness),
Trust
(Renege),
Inducement
(Rejection),
Deterrence
(Incitement),
Positioning
(Vulnerabilty),
and
Threat
(Weakness).
Four more are Collaboration (Integration),
Cooperation (Agreement), Confrontation (Persuasion) and
Conflict (Escalation). A further two are Presuming Agreement
(Disagreement) and Direct (Indirect) Action. The final one is
Proceed by Adjusting (Adapting). The paper shows why the
United States should move away from a Unilateralist approach
to dealing with international terrorism, rely more on Indirect
Action such as International Cooperation with the United
Nations, the European Union and Islamic Countries, and Adapt
its approach so as to focus more on Conflict Resolution.
Keywords: Decision Science, Nomology, Systems, Development,
Adjustment, Conflict
The Prisoners’ Dilemma in Game Theory.
Two robbers have been caught in the vicinity of a crime. Immediately
the police separate them and proceed to interrogate them, trying to get
them to cooperate with the authorities. The prisoners are guilty, but there
is not sufficient proof. If one cooperates in exchange for his freedom the
other will get a very long sentence. But if both cooperate then both will
get not so severe a sentence. If both are collaborators they should say
nothing, in which case they will probably be held on remand for a short
period pending a trial and then be freed. The prisoners’ dilemma is a
collaboration dilemma: can they retain their “integration” despite the
efforts of the authorities to divide them?
The difference between cooperation and collaboration is that cooperation
recognises a distinction between the parties, whereas collaboration
assumes that they are, or can be united, in some general way.
We use Nomology to clarify, contextualise and extend these concepts,
starting from where they have been developed by Confrontation and
Collaboration Analysis and Drama Theory.
Confrontation and Collaboration Analysis
Crannell, M., Howard, N., Norwood, G.W., and Tait, A. (2005). A C2 System for
‘Winning hearts and minds’: Tools for Confrontation and Collaboration Analysis, at
The 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium
New web address for this paper
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/361.pdf
PO U
PEOPLE
R
PE
SH
EDU
OC
PR
ON
RE
PU
Y
IT
PT
IV
IO
N
PR
ICE
T
UC
PR OD
PUTTING
PLANNING
PLIA
BIL
TI
PU
PLACE
NC
E
PR
OP
O
SI
ITY
TICE
AC
R
P
LL
PR
OM
O TI
ON
C
E
ICY
POL
Fig. 1: General Political Adjustment Activities
Confrontation and Collaboration Analysis
Using Chinese Constructs
POU
PEOPLE
R
PE
SH
RE
PU
Y
IT
PT
IV
IO
N
PR
ICE
UC T
PR OD
PUTTING
PLANNING
PLIA
BIL
EDU
OC
PR
ON
TI
PU
PLACE
NC
E
PR
OP
O
SI
ITY
TICE
AC
R
P
LL
PR
OM
O TI
ON
ICY
POL
C
E
Drama Theory (So Called Six Dilemmas)
New web addresses for these papers
Murray-Jones, P., and Howard, N. (1999). Confrontation Analysis: a Command and
Control System for Conflicts Other Than War, The 1999 Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium (CCRTS),
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/1999_CCRTS/pdf_files/track_3/042howar.pdf
Murray-Jones, P., Stubbs, L. and Howard, N. (2003). Testing and automating human
interactions in Peace and Stabilisation Operations, The 8th International Command
and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS),
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/pdf/134.pdf
Drama Theory: Credibility, Trust, Inducement, Deterrence, Positioning, Threat
Unilateralism and Negotiation are new.
TICE
AC
PR
POU
RE
PU
UC
N
PR
ICE
PR OD
PUTTING
PLANNING
PLIA
B
ILI
TI
EDU
OC
PR
ON
SI
TY
PLACE
SH
NC
E
PR
OP
O
PU
TY
PT
VI
IO
TI
LL
PR
PEOPLE
OM
O TI
ON
RC
PE
ICY
POL
E
The current U.S. defence of unilateralism is presented as a deterrence dilemma:
“In 9/11, the profound threat from WMD, terrorism, and radical Islamic
movements coalesced in a single convulsive act. The weakness, paralysis,
and ineffectuality of such multilateral responses to the threat, as the
United Nations (UN) and European Union might muster, mandate an
American policy of “self-reliance, independence, and even unilateralism.”
The long-familiar strategy of containment is ill-adapted to provide
security in the face of the new threat because the enemy is at once so
amorphous and fragmented that American power cannot be applied in a
deterrent role. Moreover, if deterrence fails, the consequences could be
horrific. Thus a more aggressive strategy is indicated, allowing for preemptive and preventive attacks by the United States to forestall intended
terrorist attacks. Like the Cold War, the war on terror is likely to be long
and costly, but it is unavoidable.”
(Paraphrased from Prof. Robert Lieber (2004) at a panel discussion on
“American Grand Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism” at a Strategy
Conference in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.)
This is an argument against deterrence.
Deterrence is the last of the four indirect action activities.
Consequently it is an argument against indirect action.
It implies that the U.S. should go into conflict with any country it cannot
control (through collaboration).
The key policy advisers do not unanimously hold this view.
Speaking at the same meeting, Wohlforth (2004) rejected unilateralism
because it “undermines key alliances and partnerships”.
Nomology helps to consider political decision processes in general.
An important nomological process is Development, which follows a
generic structure based on a Convincing process embedded within a
Committing process, and is implemented using an Adjusting process.
Consider how this three-layer system applies to the situation of ongoing
dispute between two interest groups, such as two countries, where one
is stronger and the other weaker.
Ongoing dispute leads to a stripping-back or rolling-back of levels of
development, which is named as “Reducing”, down to the political level.
Table 1. Hierarchy of Levels of Needs, Preferences and Values
Introverted Development
Extroverted Development - Convincing Stages
- Committing Phases
Technical - Self
Contextual - Others
Situational - Business
Somatic – Needs
Physical
Political
Economic
Social
Cultural
Emotional
Artistic
Religious
Mystical
Psychic – Preferences
Pneumatic – Values
Next consider ongoing political conflict where neither side is winning.
PLACE
NC
E
PR
OP
O
PEOPLE
R
PE
SH
EDU
OC
PR
ON
RE
PU
Y
IT
PT
IV
IO
N
PR
ICE
T
UC
PR OD
PUTTING
PLANNING
PLIA
BIL
TI
PU
PO U
TICE
AC
SI
ITY
PR
LL
PR
OM
O TI
ON
C
E
ICY
POL
Conflict resolution involves moving from conflict to confrontation, to
cooperation, and finally to collaboration.
This uses the adjusting structure described in the first part, but in reverse,
as an adapting process.
Nobody moves unless it is a Win-Win Game.
Confrontation involves “eye-balling” your enemy and honestly expressing
your feelings, while listening to the other.
Conflict Resolution requires a deeper response that involves bringing the
focus into a fourth layer of decision-making, which also follows an
adjusting structure.
This leads to differentiating two different kinds of adjusting and
corresponding names for the third layer “How I Adjust My World” and
the fourth layer “How I Adjust Myself”.
Aspects of adjusting oneself are Body, Mind, Soul and Spirit.
Corresponding feelings are fear, anxiety, guilt and resentment.
Lessons from how South Africa applied this process as a mutual
adaptation of their divided society to living with one another lead to
suggestions about how conflicting parties such as in Northern Ireland
could make steps towards conflict resolution.
The U.S. Government presumed that they could go into Iraq and get a
quick win, that extra military resources in Afghanistan would be enough
to wipe out the Taliban, that a combination of force and money would be
sufficient to wipe out opposition from Islamic terrorist groups, without
working indirectly, looking for win-win solutions out of conflict,
confronting those who provide local support for attacks against them, and
cooperating with the international community (U.N. and Europe).
Change would require the US to adapt its own behaviour and motivations.