LET’S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF

Posted on Monday 8 January 2007

“The puzzle is if both sides knew what the outcome of the war would be, then both sides would be better off not fighting the war,” said Dan Reiter, a political scientist at Emory University.

[…]

What this model suggests is that wars are not primarily about conflicts between two sides, because most conflicts can be settled to the benefit of both sides without actual fighting. War, Reiter and others argue, primarily reflects a lack of information: When two sides cannot agree on how much damage they can inflict on one another — and how much damage they can sustain — war offers a mechanism to provide that information.

Wars Ultimately Measure Tolerance of Pain (Washington Post)


2 Comments for 'LET’S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF'

  1.  
    8 January 2007 | 6:43 pm
     

    Wars have a domestic component as much as a foreign one. Sometimes domestic needs drive the war entirely. The more or less permanent state of exception we live in, and in which most of us have spent our entire lives, serves the political class well, win or lose.

  2.  
    10 January 2007 | 1:57 pm
     

    Well, let’s break down winners and losers so far, shall we? I’ll start with the obvious ones:

    Winners
    Defense contractors
    The oil industry
    People who own stock in either or both of the above

    Losers
    US troops and their families
    US kids, who inherit the gargantuan debt
    Anyone who has the misfortune to be “collateral damage”

Leave a comment




Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

Use the buttons below to customise your comment.


RSS feed for comments on this post |