Andrew Hofer has an interesting take on Dubya’s latest State of the Union Address, examining the President’s hardline rhetoric through the critical lens of Game Theory:
Many pundits have been reacting to the State of the Union, particularly Bush’s singling out North Korea, Iran and Iraq for harsh criticism and referring to them using World War II terminology. Pundits debate whether this amounts to a “unilateral” declaration of war, and worry over the effect on European relations etc. I think they are missing the point. The speech was about making credible threats against terrorism. The intended audiences for this remark were terrorist regimes and those wavering at home. And the purpose was to increase the credible threat power of the U.S.
[…]Game Theory, as developed by Von Neumann, and formalized by figures such as John Nash, provides a framework for this sort of action. Game Theory describes the potential outcome of a contest between a limited number of players, each attempting to ‘split up a pie’ or maximize the utility of an outcome. An important mechanism that helps define the outcome is ‘threat power’. Threat power is the ability of one player to damage another net of the other player’s ability to damage him. If you don’t care about your life (or your things, your family, convention, public opinion, etc.), you can sustain little damage, in utility terms. Any damage you can inflict is a threat power advantage.
[…]The United States is restrained by world opinion, by domestic opinion, by its democratic nature, by its concern for civilian casualties and by its respect for our world’s conventions. These are all good things, but they reduce our threat power.
While Bush’s speech made us all a little nervous, it was intended to make terrorist sponsors nervous. The jangling of European nerves was a side effect. This was a forceful speech intended to show terrorist regimes and dictators that:
a) we won’t necessarily be restrained by a need to please Europe or other parts of the world, and
b) we won’t be restrained by waiting for an open act of aggression on your part.
The point was to increase our threat power. It would not have been effective if it weren’t as jarring as it was. A credible threat can save lives, avoid conflict and increase bargaining power, however unattractive and realpolitik it may seem.
This analysis is perfectly in keeping with the entire rhetorical framework the Bushies have crafted and deployed to present their agenda for public consumption. From Bush’s infamous “dead or alive” pronouncement to the Rumsfeldian straight talk (in which “bad guys” are routinely “killed” and their hideouts “blown to bits”) so popular with everyone outside of Common Dreams and the Guardian (and perhaps the State Department), the Bush War Face has been one of brash confidence and unflinching resolve — a countenance that exudes self-assuredness and the unblinking commitment to a goal that is non-negotiable.
What the Bush rhetorical strategy has done is to make clear to the world that the U.S. is not afraid to act unilaterally. Coalitions may break down, but so what? We’ve got a job to do. European intellectuals and statist bureaucrats may wring their hands and speak in silly equivalencies, but who cares? We have a moral mandate for our actions, and we recognize our obligation to both history and freedom — though more “timid” nations may flinch from that responsibility. Sovereignty has returned with a vengeance, and the UN — predictably — has been largely silent.
And the swagger is working. The last sound we heard from the Arab street was the click!-click!-thunk! of doors being double-locked and bolted. Outraged protesters retired indoors, opting for a pot of green tea and a quiet meal in lieu of the horrible inferno a 15,000-pound Daisy Cutter promises to bring to the party.
Whether or not this strategy proves effective in the long run will depend in large part on our willingness (and ability) to make good on our threats, I suspect.
As Stephen Den Beste has succinctly put it: “It is not possible for us to convert hatred into friendship, but we can convert contempt into dread.”
[related: Bush puts military on the borders, dropping the gauntlet at the feet of the PC brigade. Should make Victor Davis Hanson happy…]
—–