The United States and Islmaic radicals: conflict unending?

• Author: Yusef, Moeed

Introduction

The events of September 11, 2001 shook the foundations of the world's only superpower. Approximately 3,000 lives were lost in the tragic attacks on American soil. (1) The United States quickly determined that the radical Islamic group al Qaeda bore responsibility for the horrendous act. Since then, President George W. Bush has vowed to fight terrorism until the threat to the U.S. is completely eradicated. Adopting a proactive policy, the U.S. attacked the al Qaeda base in Afghanistan in October 2001, forcing the Taliban regime that harbored al Qaeda from power. Despite an outright victory in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan remains unstable and al Qaeda continues to operate around the world. The situation is not much different in Iraq where U.S. military force has toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Successful al Qaeda terrorist attacks around the world following American military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq highlight the difficulty of devising a strategy to combat even one radical Islamic group, let alone eradicating the threat from all groups. (2)

As military operations against both al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and elements of Saddam Hussein's late regime in Iraq continues, and speculation concerning an expansion of America's current war against terrorism increases, the world hopes that the end to this campaign will bring long-lasting peace. Application of the concept of Game Theory to the conduct of the war on terrorism, however, indicates that one should not be optimistic about future prospects for peace between the U.S. and radical Islamic groups.

Game Theory

Unlike games that one observes in the sporting world, "games of theory" are interactive exercises that require one to think strategically. (3) A "game" is a competitive situation where opposing players try to make moves according to particular strategies that promise to yield the best "payoffs" for them. A fundamental premise of a game is that a single player cannot dictate the outcome. The strategies of all the players involved in the game determine the outcome. "Game Theory" is thus a study of decision-making in a situation where there is either a combination of conflict and cooperation or total conflict between the players. (4)

A "game" can consist of two or more players. For the purpose of this discussion, two clearly defined players will be used, the U.S. and radical Islamic groups, both of whom are willing to resort to violence as a means of achieving their objectives.

According to the tenets of Game Theory, there are two major types of games: sequential and simultaneous. In a sequential game, one finds a strict order of play; one player makes a move and the other has a chance to study it before reacting. (5) This creates a situation where one player makes a move in consideration of future consequences. (6) A sequential game that continues over several plays is known as an iterated game. In this particular game, there can be evolution of cooperation

between the players, as, over time, they realize the possibility of a mutually beneficial strategy. (7) A simultaneous game, on the other hand, is one in which both players make decisions that are implemented at the same time and are independent of the other player's actions. The knowledge of any previously employed strategy of the opponent is not available in this situation. As a consequence. both players have to base their moves on what they think the other player is likely to do. (8) In this discussion, the "game" is sequential. The U.S. has complete knowledge of a move made by radical Islamic groups and takes that into account before making a decision. Similarly, a U.S. move towards radical Islamic groups is not covert and can be studied by the radicals before they take any further action.

The games structured in Game Theory can also be divided into two categories based on the final outcome: zero-sum and non-zero sum games. A zero-sum game is one in which a gain for one player automatically results in an equivalent loss for the other. The total sum of the payoffs for the players taking part in the game is always zero or some constant. (9) Unlike zero-sum games, non-zero sum games are ones in which a gain for one player does not automatically imply a loss for the other. (10) In this situation, there is no relationship between the payoffs for different players and the sum of the payoffs is neither zero nor a constant. (11) In the case of the U.S. versus radical Islamic groups, the game is of a non-zero nature, as are most games in the real world. The following discussion will try to demonstrate that merely one or even a few victories for either side will not completely ensure the eradication of the other.

It may be clear at this point that the U.S. is the better defined of the two players. Its opponent in this game, "radical Islamic groups," needs to be defined to afford a fair discussion. These groups do not include every single Muslim radical group present in the world today. Rather, they include only those groups that are inclined to resort to violence as a means to harm U.S. interests in their quest to achieve their objectives. It is also assumed that the radical Islamic groups included in this study have preferences in line with the established parameters of this game. They may be "state sponsored" but so long as they are willing to use violence against the U.S. to further their cause and have preferences in accordance with the set perimeters of the game they are categorized as the "player" opposing the U.S. in this game. (12)

The players in every game implement strategies. The term "strategy" refers to a course of action followed to achieve a desired objective. (13) The players are bound to use a combination of different strategies to achieve their desired "outcome." An outcome is deemed favorable if it pushes the player closer to his goal. An outcome leads to a "payoff" in a game. A "payoff" constitutes the reward obtained by pursuing a particular strategy and is affected by the strategy implemented by the opposing player. (14) A favorable outcome depicts a positive payoff while an unfavorable outcome reflects a negative payoff for a player. A "payoff matrix," or "payoff table," is used to depict mathematically the payoffs that each player can achieve for every possible combination of the available strategies. (15) Each individual cell in the payoff matrix lists the payoffs expected by the players when the combination of the strategies associated with the particular cell is implemented.

The payoffs in the game being developed are based on assigning integer values to established parameters. These parameters depict particular situations that can logically be expected to occur for the two sides in the real world. The single integer that depicts the final payoff value for each combination of strategies is calculated by summing up the individual values assigned to each parameter for the particular combination. The values assigned to the parameters are arbitrary. The numbers are important in relative terms, and it is the relative magnitude of the final payoffs that depicts one strategy being preferable for a particular player than some other.

It is also important to examine another concept fundamental to Game Theory: the "Nash Equilibrium." Game Theory operates under the logical assumption that in any game, the players involved will constantly try to pursue a strategy that would offer them the highest payoff. (16) In the following game model, it is evident that both the U.S. and the radical Islamic groups would want to pursue the strategy that would provide the highest payoff for them regardless of the payoff their strategy would bring to the opponent.

In a sequential game, however, the strategy adopted by one player will be governed not only by the urge to achieve the highest payoff, but it also will be modified by the strategy employed by the other player. (17) Hence, neither player is able to follow the strategy they would have followed in the absence of the other player and have to choose alternate strategies that would serve them best in light of the strategies pursued by the opponent. (18) This causes both players to abandon their most preferable strategies. They thus end up pursuing a set of strategies that each player believes yields the best payoff for each one individually given the strategy employed by the other player. This set of strategies is known as the "Nash Equilibrium" for the particular game. In short, this term refers to a position in which neither player might like to be optimally, but which neither is inclined to alter unilaterally on account of its dependency upon the strategy of the other player. (19)

Objectives

Bearing in mind the current situation in the conflict between radical Islamic groups and the U.S., it is now necessary to evaluate the conflict's outcome and impact on the world's future. In so doing, one must define the objectives of the two sides and list the strategic alternatives available to them. The U.S. seeks to eradicate threats posed to it by radical Islamic groups. This would entail continuing its interventionist policy in the Muslim world and maintaining a physical presence in Muslim countries. Radical Islamic groups are bent on removing American presence from the Muslim world and forcing the U.S. to abandon its manipulation of the affairs of Muslim countries. (20) These objectives are those that have never been stated publicly by either of the players in question, but careful examination of the motives of both sides based on past actions can be used to determine their respective objectives. Based on public pronouncements, the American campaign against radical Islamic groups seeks to eliminate "terrorism" and enhance freedom in the world. (21) Similarly, radical Islamic groups have proclaimed that their goal is to create an environment where Islam can be practiced without oppression or...