A couple of weeks ago, I posted my thoughts on Zane's post about the situation in swat in Pakistan. Then he responded to me. I just wanted to make it clear that in my original post, I wasn't critiquing his understanding of Olson--he's dead on. I just think Olson's missing a piece in his own theory.
In general, I think Olson-esque rational choice approaches work great when the actors in a given situation possess the cognitive models which make it likely that the rationality they will exercise will resemble that which we possess. Example: everybody likes to be richer, other things being equal.
The question (and it is only that--a question) is, in this situation--in any situation involving the Taliban--is it appropriate to assume that they (a) want to be richer (their goals might have less to do with wealth and more to do with living some sort of religious lifestyle), and that they (b) are able to enrich their territorial jurisdiction if they do want to be richer?
So, basically, I wonder if the roving bandit/stationary bandit theoretical approach applies in this situation.
I realize that wondering these things means that I'm becoming some sort of political culture/constructivist hippie. But I got a really short haircut a couple of days ago (for about $1.30) to compensate.
On a related note, this popped up recently--effectively, this sounds much like the strategy followed by the US in Iraq under "The Awakening," which was a lot like the strategy followed by the Peruvians under Fujimori against the Shining Path, which also resembled the strategy that was followed by the Carrancistas in Mexico during the revolution (which ultimately defeated the great Pancho Villa, among others).
Militant anarcho-communitarianism, anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment