Hostage Crisis Reflection

After hearing Dr. Kluthe’s comment that this was the first year that the hostages were executed and the U.S took military action, I though about and reflected on what went wrong in the simulation. What element made it a blood bath rather than solution forged out of negotiation and diplomacy? The first problem would be the lack of direct communication. I learned at the debriefing session that neither of the parties demanded direct contact with each other. Even I and the other TV correspondents had to actually go out and hunt for our interviews. Shouldn’t the parties want to communicate with each other? The Committee for National Struggle’s interview was little more than an angry tirade by Hamid, their leader. Clearly, communication was sparse from what I inferred.Without direct communication, negotiation is not possible. This leads to a cloud of uncertainty and doubt surrounding the other party’s intentions. In game theory, both played optimally under the circumstances of no direct lines of communication. If both cooperate, ex: the US gives in to some/all of the kidnappers demands and the prisoners are released, then both win. If both do not cooperate, ex: the US performs military strikes, and the hostages are killed, no one wins or looses. There is only a blood bath. If the US cooperates and the terrorists do not cooperate, ex: US give in to some/all of the kidnappers and the terrorists still execute the hostages, the US drastically looses. If the terrorists cooperate and the US does not, ex: the kidnappers release the hostages and the US performs a military strike, then the kidnappers lose. Without any knowledge of what your opponent will do, in this game theoretic model, the best option is to always not cooperate (the classic prisoner’s dilemma). If the US cooperates, it will either win or lose. If the US chooses not to cooperate, it will either win, or a blood bath occurs with no winner (a draw). In theory, it is safer not to cooperate. These assumptions hold true if and only if no lines of communication exist. By why should we reduce a situation involving many lives to cold, hard game theory based on no communication? If only people would communicate, things would be different. Both sides would win. Throughout history lack of communication in crises has caused needless strife and pain in our world. During the Cold War, the lack of diplomacy caused nuclear proliferation no one wanted. This simulation we played represents a microcosm. A little world that shows what would happen in the real world without direct communication (as has already happens). Lets hope the people of the world can learn from their mistakes…