Can a Round of Poker Solve Afghanistan’s Problems?
Game Theory
Can a Round of Poker Solve Afghanistan’s Problems?
by Major Richard J.H. Gash, Small Wars Journal
Can a Round of Poker Solve Afghanistan’s Problems? (Full PDF Article)
Analyzing the ill-structured problem that is southern Afghanistan noticeably tests the bounds of traditional military planning doctrine. Identifying and framing the problem, isolating centers of gravity, and even articulating an attainable end-state given the tangle of tribal violence, narco-trafficing, and religious fanaticism can drive otherwise mild mannered planners to the verge of physical violence. Training and Doctrine Command’s Pamphlet 525-5-500 goes as far as predicting an expected “lack of professional consensus” when tackling such a “wicked problem”1. Fortunately (or unfortunately), ill-structured problems do not exist solely in the realm of military conflict. Social scientists, political theorists, and economists routinely grapple with their likes. Over the past century they have devoted much scholarly effort toward their mitigation, if not solution. One theory that may particularly apply to southern Afghanistan is that of games. Although one can quickly become bogged down with the mathematics of game theory, a rudimentary understanding of its basic principles can prove quite beneficial to military planners. What follows is a brief primer and simple demonstration of how game theory can be applied to help military planners frame the problem of developing a viable counterinsurgency strategy in southern Afghanistan.
Can a Round of Poker Solve Afghanistan’s Problems? (Full PDF Article)
