A question for the game theorists
I've never once seen an application of the min-max Theorem to a question of military strategy that left me with a warm-and-fuzzy feeling that what I had just taken the time to digest would ever be actually repeated by a commander. My problem is mixed strategies.
Mixed strategies, where a player's strategy is expressed as a vector of probabilities (c.f. pure strategies), are central to min-max Theory, but don't seem like they would be very satisfying to a commander as a solution. The problem is that the optimal strategy predicted by min-max is only "optimal" in the probabilitic sense, i.e. over many runs it will tend not to be outperformed by any other strategy, and that much only if the other player also applies his optimal strategy with a suitable chance mechanism.
But what about one-off interactions like the kind we often face in the real world? What good is a vector of probabilities as a "solution" when a commander must choose a course of action exactly once and it is still possible to select the absolute worst course of action for any one specific interaction? Is min-max Theory not a tool that is used in Military Strategy?
defensible decisions made in ignorance
This thread comes close to something that I'm worrying.
At the end of my undergrad I spent some time studying game theory.
I stopped studying it and went and did a MA in political philosophy when I figured that accumulated uncertainties overwhelmed predictive resolution long before I got to the point I would feel comfortable using the conclusions to support decision making.
These days I'm looking at decision making for interveners in failed and fragile states. At one end there are the COIN folks, which is why I'm on this board, and at the other you have the full spectrum of civvies. They are all trying to work in spaces that overwhelm just about any linear planning model you can think about while having to smile nice for bureaucracies that descend directly from a wet dream of bureaucratic rationality.
What notions are there out there, really, that are workable, again, really, for marrying off environments that overwhelm precisely the imaginary that makes it possible for bureaucracies to flow the money and resources needed to act in those environments?
I don't want to hear the 'more knowledge to inform decisions' argument. My assumption and observation is that decisions in these environments will be knowledge starved when they matter and knowledge-rich when they don't.
I'm looking for discussions of politically passable ways to make operationally responsible decisions when knowledge starved in overwhelmingly complex environments.
-peter
You are on the right road
peter:
I, too, in grad school, played with predictive models, and their inherent limitations and inconsistencies with unbounded realities, unanticipated consequences, and real-life wicked problems.
I just finished a paper for a court case addressing the failures of economic models as a viable tool where certainty and precision are required. They are just not up to the task in many particular applications.
Quick" How many troops are required to take, hold and stabilize Marjah?
Not knowable, and whatever models were applied, did not work.
How many troops are required to take and hold Kandahar to "X" level of stability, with and without AWK? Another unknowable.
Does that mean that any of these objectives are not do-able? No. Does it mean that troop levels are not the critical variable? Yes.
So, the fun of war gaming is to test theories of war, not theories of societal structure and changes within an unstable society, fractured and post-conflict environment.
Better, perhaps, to identify and model the characteristics of a post-conflict fractured society, then test political/societal change theories based on careful delineation of the fractures, faults, parties and paths.
The troop-levl variables will probably fall out of that analysis.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita-Game Theory Of Iran
Don't why I didn't think of this guy before,but here is his game theory on the future on Iran.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/b..._s_future.html
Also I posted a paper on politics and game theory from the Air Force but cannot remember the name:( anyway it is the Strategy that the republicans are using against President Obama and it is working!!!!!!all the Republicans have to do is make him fail on one or more of his polices and the Republicans will win the elections, they don't have to offer any solutions just make him fail. Much of the game theory used in the paper was done be de Mesquita.