The game theory modeling world can be academically exclusive, full of rivalry, and especially abstract, but I believe it can provide a very real, significant push in moving from war and instability to peace and hope. To put my argument up front, if America wishes to take a real step towards furthering peace, writ large, it must address the ‘zero-sum’ decision-making and hoarding instinct that occurs in a conflict environment to bring about change in protracted conflicts. Simply put, when we live and work in an environment lacking trust, we continually must make decisions that exclude those outside of our own circle of trust; these decisions then further ostracize those outside of our circle, with many broad negative externalities: corruption, conflict, economic stratification, poor governance and rule of law, stifled innovation and economic development, etc. Moreover, I believe that one should be able to monitor zero-sum and hoarding tendencies for signs of eroding peace and security and thus address the erosion by targeting the negative decision-making behavior, directly or indirectly.
As mentioned, game theory is quite a daunting topic, encompassing the fields of economics, politics, psychology, philosophy, and more. I first took an interest in it via simulated experiments during my undergraduate years, bolstered during my later service as an Undergraduate Teaching Assistant in International Political Economy. After leaving school, I shelved the seemingly ‘abstract concept’ until I had the chance to observe it in Afghanistan, an example of the harshest of decision-making environments. Within a few months there, I noted a stark zero-sum perspective on life in every realm: social, economic, and political. My job there was to unabashedly analyze the conflict, and what I concluded was that decades of conflict had forged a need for nepotism and hoarding because instability erodes trust, and eroded trust breeds further instability; an endless cycle seems to be unfolding, consequently, and the behavior is especially frustrating due to mounting corruption, economic polarization, political disenfranchisement, targeted killings, etc.
Ironically, America is squandering an obscene amount of time and assistance in Afghanistan without addressing the noted lack of trust that leads to hoarding and zero-sum behavior. America needs to push forward with not more projects to dump money (e.g., CERP), rather those that directly shape ‘the decision-making market’. Opportunities for positive change are numerous but require true intellectual investment, such as instituting a grant-sharing market that ensures transparency, vets participants, and combats corruption; or dismembering and isolating political-economic mafias (Karzai, Fahim, Nourzai, etc.). Recognizing that the status quo is in jeopardy, mafias and warlords will mount grand attempts to threaten efforts for change. One must remember, though, that Afghans demanded these changes from the outset, while we sided with supporting the mafias to bring about a flawed peace.
With strong grounding in game theory and its benefits, academic and governmental practitioners should monitor hoarding and zero-sum decision making as indicators of progress or decline by tracking confidence and economic-political actions. Moreover, we need to substantively explore the relations between tactical/military progress and changes in the two negative behaviors. Without monitoring and addressing decision-making behavior that erodes trust, the ability to move from conflict to peace is likely evermore fleeting, especially in Afghanistan.
