Below is a post at ejectejecteject.com talking about the classic game theory example, the prisoner’s dilemma, and how it relates to our relationship with Al Qaeda, among other things. The two main battlefields where the United States and Al Qaeda are at war with each other, besides the mainstream Western media, are Iraq and Afghanistan, in that order. Whether or not we stay or leave, surrender or prevail, will have long-term consequences. If Al Qaeda were to be vanquished in Iraq, either by the U.S., the Iraqi Army, the tribal militias, or some combination thereof, and Iraq were then to descend into a pure Sunni/Shia civil war, as the Democrats are so desperate to insist that it already is, then I could at least contemplate an argument for withdrawal, but I would still be against it. Throwing up our hands and choosing to just turn over Iraq, the central, oil-rich territory in the Middle East, to whomever is strong enough to take it, would not, in my humble opinion, bode well.
So, anyway, the prisoner’s dilemma is a cogent analysis of the differences between liberalism and conservatism. The choices are: always screw the other guy, never screw the other guy, or choose to screw or not screw the other guy, depending on what he did to you the last time. If it’s a one-time deal then the first option is the best choice. If it’s an iterative deal, then the third option is the best choice. The second option is never always the best choice. A large subset of liberals believes in option number two. A small subset of conservatives believes in option number one. A minority of liberals and a majority of conservatives believes in option number three. Overall, I would say that U.S. and Western culture as a whole is trending away from option number three towards option number two. This is Osama Bin Laden’s analysis as well. This is what the Islamists are banking on.