tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post113950597799831287..comments2024-01-02T19:45:37.874-05:00Comments on National Security Policy: Is Schelling still relevant?Robert Farleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12233771830519084383noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post-1140014137019492012006-02-15T09:35:00.000-05:002006-02-15T09:35:00.000-05:00That's the fun part, isn't it--determining compell...That's the fun part, isn't it--determining compellence v. deterrence. I agree with the discussion that that's where Schelling breaks down. They may believe they're deterring us whereas we may see it as compellence or vice versa.<BR/><BR/>As for your last statement...I'm not entirely certain that it doesn't fit. Intellectually, we do know the course of action terrorist groups will take. We know that they will strike and that they will do so in a manner difficult to anticipate. <BR/><BR/>Hmmm...it is an intellectual exercise...Meowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547820435224380238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20236701.post-1139538913866539802006-02-09T21:35:00.000-05:002006-02-09T21:35:00.000-05:00Perhaps I missed the point(and it wouldn't be the ...Perhaps I missed the point(and it wouldn't be the first time), but I thought one of the main ideas behind Schelling was that violence was in part about communication and not merely about deterrence. <BR/><BR/>Schelling's logic is that a party can use violence to communicate displeasure with a given course of action, even act upon another party to produce a response. We remember the basic dissuasion vs. coercion discussion from the course.<BR/><BR/>I'd say terrorism fits into that model, albeit one-sidedly.<BR/><BR/>Let's take 9/11. That was a demonstration by Al-Quaeda that they possessed the ability to harm the United States. The target was selected rather carefully: the World Trade Center in New York, a symbol of the Western Capitalist system, and the group attacked it. The pentagon represented the American military establishment, and I don't think I need to explain the White House. These are carefully planned out uses of violence perpetuated on carefully chosen targets that send a message to the United States. The message is pretty clear: 'We don't like you and your intervention in our region', but note that they're still leaving us cities and infrastructures to lose. That sounds like Shelling-logic to me.<BR/><BR/>Now, with non-state actors, Schelling starts to break down because his formula for deterrence depends on the existence of a franchised state with something to lose. With Al-Quaeda, these are men and women with nothing to lose, which they demonstrate via suicide bombings. They have already decided there is nothing to lose, which is what makes them so dangerous.<BR/><BR/>However, they have to be supplied by networks of individuals that function as part of a state and therefore do have something to lose, and that's where Schelling-logic comes into play, at least to a certain extent. We can, if we so choose, use violence to indicate our resolve to find these people to the supporting nation. (assuming state sponsored terrorism) Now, whether that's an intelligent move, is an entirely different question.Meowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547820435224380238noreply@blogger.com