Preview

International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy

Advanced search

Game-Theoretic Modeling of Asymmetric Conflicts: The Case of Afghanistan 2009–2016

https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.3.54.7

Abstract

21st century has seen the USA, NATO and international coalitions participating in politico-military asymmetric conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Military campaign in Afghanistan has already become the longest in the US history. Before leaving the office, the former US president Barack Obama had declared the success of the mission. At the same time, the decrease in a number of foreign troops in Afghanistan is said to have led to the instability in this country. Effectiveness and efficiency of the decisions taken by the previous White House administration are again a subject of the fierce debates amidst the new strategic plan for Afghanistan announced by the new USA president Mr. Trump. The White House has decided to focus on a result, not a timeframe. The mission will be aimed at “killing terrorists”, not at peacekeeping in or development of Afghanistan. The authors of the article try to escape linear paradigm and descriptive method, estimating the efficiency of the military component of the US and ISAF strategy in Afghanistan during Mr. Obama’s presidency (2009–2016) with the use of the game- theory model developed earlier by other scholars. This model describes the relations between terrorist and counterterrorist actions. The model turns out to be inapplicable to the asymmetric conflict, according to the results of the regression analysis of the panel data and time-series, characterizing the politico-military situation in Afghanistan in 2009–2016, and collected by authors through quantitative event-analysis. Surprisingly the function of the terrorist actions in Afghanistan is positively related with the functions of counterterrorist actions, whereas, the functions of counterterrorist actions does not depend on terrorist attacks. As a result, the authors of the article suggest a new game-theory model for the forecasting of the politico-military situation in Afghanistan after 2016 within non-linear paradigm framework.

About the Authors

Alexey Teteryuk
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Mr Alexey Teteryuk - Doctoral Candidate, Department of Political Theory, MGIMO University

Moscow 119454



Yan Chizhevsky
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Mr Yan Chizhevsky - Doctoral Candidate, Department of Comparative Politics,
MGIMO University

Moscow 119454



References

1. Arkin R.C. (2010). The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems. Journal of Military Ethics. Vol. 9. Issue 4. P. 332–341.

2. Arreguin-Toft I. (2001). How the Weak Win Wars. International Security. Vol. 26. No.1. P. 93–128.

3. Arzumanyan R.V. (2011). Slozhnoe myshlenie i set': paradigma nelinejnosti i sreda bezopasnosti 21 veka [Complex thinking and network: paradigm of nonlinear and environment of security in XXI century]. Er.: NOF «Noravank». 496 p.

4. Arunova M.R. (2013). Modifikacija strategicheskih zadach SShA v Afganistane (2001–2010 gg.). [Modification of strategic objectives of the USA in Afghanistan (2001–2010)]. «Afghanistan.ru». URL:

5. http://www.afghanistan.ru/doc/19303.html

6. Batyuk V. (2017). Novaja strategija USA v Afganistane [New strategy of the USA in Afghanistan]. Rossijskij Sovet po Mezhdunarodnym Delam. URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/ analytics/novaya-strategiya-ssha-v-afganistane/

7. Boed R. (2000). State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct. Yale Humanitarian Rights and Development Journal. Vol. 3. Issue 1. 45 p.

8. Borishpolets K.P. (2010). Metody politicheskih issledovanij: Ucheb. posobie dlja studentov vuzov [Methods of political studies: textbook for students of universities] 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. Aspekt Press. 230 p.

9. Buzhinskij E. (2014). Prioritety razvitija bespilotnikov: ot voennogo dela k jekonomike [Priority of development of UAV: from military affair to economics]. Indeks Bezopasnosti. Vol. 19. No. 3(106). P. 123–132.

10. Chizhevsky Y.A. (2016). Razvitie voenno-politicheskogo diskursa: predstavljaem neologizmy “asimmetrichnyj konflikt” i “gibridnaja vojna” [Development of military and political discourse: neologisms «asymmetric conflict» and «hybrid warfare»]. Politicheskaja nauka. No. 2. P. 269–283.

11. Creveld M. (1991). The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press. 272 p.

12. Deriglazova L.V. (2005). Paradoks asimmetrii v mezhdunarodnom konflikte [Paradox of asymmetry in international conflict]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 3. No. 3(9).

13. Eyal Z. (2012). Logistics in Asymmetric Conflicts. Army Sustainment. Vol. 44. Issue 1. P. 46–48.

14. Gaibulloev K., Piazza J.A., Sandler T. (2017). Regime types and terrorism. International Organization. Vol. 71. Issue 3. P. 491–522.

15. Giustozzi A., Ali M. (2016). The Afghan National Army After ISAF. Report by AREU. 18 p. URL: https:// areu.org.af/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1603E-The-Afghan-National-Army-after-ISAF.pdf

16. Gross L.M. (2010). Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press. 321 p.

17. Hopkins M. J. (2010). Regulating the conduct of urban warfare: lessons from contemporary asymmetric armed conflicts. The International Review of the Red Cross. Vol. 92. No. 878. June. P. 469–493.

18. Khrustalev M.A. (2008). Analiz mezhdunarodnyh situacij i politicheskaja jekspertiza: ocherki teorii i metodologii [Analysis of international situations and political expertise: essays on theory and methodology]. M.: NOFMO. 232 p.

19. Kaldor M. (2006). Old and New Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity. 256 p.

20. Katzman K., Thomas C. (2017). Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service. 79 p.

21. Kazantsev A.A. (2017). Kljuchevye faktory razvitija ugrozy mezhdunarodnogo terrorizma v Central'noj Azii i Afganistane [Key factors of development of a threat of international terrorism in Central Asia and Afghanistan]. Sbornik materialov X Konventa RAMI: V 5 tomah. M.: MGIMO. P. 124–135.

22. Kazantsev A.A. (2013). Pjat' scenariev budushhih granic Central'noj Azii [Five scenarios of future borders of Central Asia]. MGIMO, April. URL: http://www.mgimo.ru/news/experts/document237553.phtml

23. Kazantsev A.A. (2012). Politika Rossii v Central'noj Azii posle vyvoda vojsk iz Afganistana [Politics of Russia in Central Asia after withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan]. Afghanistan.ru. URL: http://www. afghanistan.ru/doc/52681.html

24. Kenny S. (2016). Instability in Afghanistan: Why Afghanistan matters and what Australia can do to address the causes of instability. Indo-Pacific Strategic Papers. 31 p.

25. Korgun V.G. (2015) Chto posle Karzaja? [What after Karzai?]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 13. No. 1(40). P. 141–149.

26. Mack A. (1975). Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict. World Politics. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 175–200.

27. Malysheva D.B. (2017) Afganskij krizis i postsovetskaja Central'naja Azija [Crisis in Afghanistan and postsoviet Central Asia]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 8. P. 14–23.

28. Nessar O. (2012). Politicheskie razvilki afganskogo krizisa [Political crossings of the Afghanistan crisis]. Mezhdunarodnaja zhizn'. No. 3. P. 37–51.

29. Podberezkin A.I., Borishpolets K.P. (eds) (2017). Nekotorye aspekty analiza voenno-politicheskoj obstanovki. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2014. 874 s.

30. Podberezkin A.I. (2017). Sovremennaja voennaya politika Rossii: V 2 t. T. 1. Moskva: MGIMO-Universitet. 817 s.

31. Safranchuk I.A. (2017) Rol' voennoj sily v politike Obamy. Opyt prinjatija reshenij na afganskom napravlenii [Military Force in Obama’s policy. The Case of Afghanistan]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 89–98.

32. Serenko A.N. (2013). Badahshanskij krizis: Taliban modeliruet afganskoe budushhee posle 2014 goda [Badakhshan crisis: Taliban shapes the Afghanistan future after 2014]. Afghanistan.ru. URL: http:// www.afghanistan.ru/doc/58331.html

33. Sergeev V.V. (2011). Politika SShA v Afganistane: voenno-politicheskij aspekt (2001–2009 gg.) [Policy of the USA in Afghanistan: military and political aspect (2001–2009)]. Research paper. M.: MGIMO. 213 p.

34. Shakleina T.A. (ed.) (2014). Amerika v fokuse rossijskih issledovatelej. Istorija i sovremennost' [America in the focus of Russian researchers. History and modernity]. M.: MGIMO. 416 p.

35. Shapiro N.I. (2017). Neokonchennaja Vojna B. Obamy [B. Obama’s unfinished war] Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 13–22.

36. Snyder G., Diesing P. (1977). Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton University Press. 596 p.

37. Stepanova E. (2008). Terrorism in asymmetrical conflicts: Ideological and structural aspects. SIPRI Research Report. No. 23. 200 p. URL: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/RR/SIPRIRR23. pdf

38. Sushentsov A.A. (2013). Ocherki politiki SShA v regionalnyh konfliktah 2000-h godov [Essays on USA policy in regional conflicts in 2000-s years]. M.: MGIMO. 272 p.

39. Sushentsov A.A. (2014). Malye vojny SShA. Politicheskaya strategiya SShA v konfliktakh v Afganistane i Irake v 2000–2010-h godah [Small wars of the USA. Political strategy of the USA in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2000–2010 years]. М.: Aspekt Press. 263 p.

40. Teteryuk A.S., Chizhevsky Y.A. (2016). Bespilotnye letatel'nye apparaty v asimmetrichnykh konfliktakh [Unmanned flying vehicles in asymmetric conflicts]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 189–201.

41. Teteryuk A.S., Chizhevsky Y.A. (2013). Central'noaziatskij trek rossijskoj vneshnej politiki [Central Asian track of Russian foreign policy]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 11. No. 3–4. P. 103–115.

42. Teteryuk A.S., Chizhevsky Y.A. (2015). Otsenka effektivnosti voennogo aspekta strategii NATO v Afganistane, prinjatoj pri B. Obame [Assessment of effectiveness of military aspect of NATO strategy in Afghanistan adopted under B. Obama] Sravnitel'naya politika. Vol. 6. No. 2 (19). P. 110–124.

43. Timofeev I.N. (2011). Mezhdunarodnoe soobshhestvo i predely vmeshatel'stva v konflikty “krizisnyh gosudarstv”: kazus Afganistana [International community and limits of interference into conflicts of «crisis states»: Afghanistan case]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 5. P. 27–36.

44. Veselovskij C. (2013). Vojny budushhego [Wars of the future]. Rossijskij Sovet po Mezhdunarodnym Delam. URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/voyny-budushchego/


Review

For citations:


Teteryuk A., Chizhevsky Ya. Game-Theoretic Modeling of Asymmetric Conflicts: The Case of Afghanistan 2009–2016. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2018;16(3):126–146. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.3.54.7

Views: 20


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1728-2756 (Print)
ISSN 1811-2773 (Online)