Thinking about Evolution & Economics and Some Notes on the Evolution of Ideas

Part 11 - IRAQ - the decision to go to war - an evolutionary economic analysis

The plausible human design process is a mirage - we learn from outcomes but we can't design them - we play games of cultural tit for tat

1. Introduction. A Battle of Ideas.

Economics is the science of choice. All decisions, including decisions to go to war, are based on beliefs, but how do we decide what to believe?

a) The Schism.

Differences in belief are everywhere, no two folk are the same, and differences are essential for the process of evolutionary change. Beliefs survive or die as a result of competition between rival ideas about what makes the better sense of the world.

One belief about decision making is based on ‘intelligent design' and suggests – 

evidence is accumulated and evaluated and future consequences are thought through 

decisions are good judgements and the necessary instructions are issued 

physical actions to achieve the desired result are then undertaken.

Progress results from a plausible linear process of logical cause and effect - an  imagined outcome is implemented by acting on plans and instructions. It is the rationale for all for top down authority in hierarchical command and control systems.

This is the way folk tend to think they think, and it was the only belief in town until Darwin's strange inversion of reason in 1859.

An alternative belief is based on the evolution of ideas and suggests ‘intelligent design’ and human intention is a learning process ultimately based on inherited 'know how' and  trial and error experiments  –

evidence is individual perception, tacit, massively diverse, dispersed, incomplete where complex future consequences and responses are unknowable 

decisions are experiments generated in the imagination and alternatives maybe better 

physical actions are tests and successful outcomes differentially survive, replicate and grow in cultural institutions

Survival progress results from a counterintuitive non-linear process of adaptation - the discovery & accumulation of survival tricks. The population frequency of ideas with survival benefits increases at the expense of less viable alternatives. 

This Darwinian thinking maybe the ultimate explanation for the moral and economic efficiency found in bottom up free democratic societies.

These rival beliefs define a vast schism in contemporary understanding of the world –

'Some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world about them and act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce so their pattern of behaviour and thought will become dominant'. Stephen Hawking – A Brief History of Time.

b) The Evolutionary Evidence Mounts.

'Intelligent design' is a plausible myth, but it is incompatible with the mounting scientific evidence of universal Darwinism.

A popular compromise suggests both beliefs can be true. Evolution may have built the physical biological world but the human brain now designs complex artefacts like the Boeing 747 by 'intelligence' and not by evolution. But there is a problem with this proposition, there is no evidence for any biology/brain discontinuity and there is no requirement for a supernatural miracle of 'intelligence', intelligence, like everything else, evolves by inheritance and trial & error. 

Cognitive scientists are suggesting that imagining outcomes in the brain is the way evolution is speeded itself up, not the way the future is predicted. The implausible lesson of evolution is that folk can learn from successful outcomes but can't design them – 

‘Our aim must be to make our successive mistakes as quickly as possible, to speed up evolution’. Karl Popper – Popper .

Evolution explains completely how the brain developed, how consciousness works and how ideas and beliefs survive – 

'Darwin's ideas are powerful enough to have done all the design work that is manifest in the world'. Daniel Dennett – Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

'Whether we like it or not, all reality is evolution, it is the only theory of complexity that we have. Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun, it is the only game in town'. Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene / Unweaving the Rainbow.

There is an evolutionary explanation for everything (including, of course, the myth of 'intelligent design').

The decision to go to war can be analysed in the context of evolutionary theory.

2. Evolutionary Economic Theory.  

a) Cooperative Synergies and Tit for Tat.

A relevant evolutionary insight comes from ‘game theory’, where the best economic decision depends on the decisions of others – 

‘Game theory is an esoteric branch of mathematics but provides the bridge between biology and economics whenever there is an apparent conflict between self interest and the common good’. Matt Ridley – The Origins of Virtue.

The deep ‘evolutionary stable’ process at work is a cooperative 'tit for tat’ strategy which ensures populations can thrive and protect themselves from harm in an environment where everyone is different – 

‘An Evolutionarily Stable Strategy, when adopted by all members of a population, will ensure no alternative mutant strategy will be successful’. John Maynard Smith – Did Darwin get it Right?

In 1983 Robert Axelrod explored computer models of the iterated ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ game and formalised the ‘tit for tat’ strategy in his book ‘The Evolution of Co-operation’. The ‘tit for tat’ strategy grows the economic benefits of cooperation over time and protects the benefits from predators and parasites, there are five rules of thumb for decision making –

cooperate - discover the 2 + 2 = 5 synergies from interactions, don’t try to win at the expense of others, seek their cooperation and avoid unnecessary expensive conflict

defend - retaliate if attacked to protect accumulated benefits of cooperation and to discourage predators & parasites 

communicate - responses must be clear, commensurate, simple, timely and emphatic to avoid misunderstandings and to develop trust 

recruit - forgive to increase the scale opportunity for future cooperative benefits, the more the merrier each iteration is a new opportunity to benefit

learn from outcomes - cooperate with cooperators and punish cheats.

Decisions seldom involve one off zero sum games, and it is profitable to cooperate. In this way evolution will tend to drive decision making towards cooperation whenever 2 + 2 = 5 type synergies exist. 

The strategy will always work whatever other people do, it must be applied blindly, everybody can participate, there are no expensive prerequisites, long term cooperation for all folk becomes an understandable moral and economic objective.  

Nevertheless cooperation will never be universal, new parasites & predators will always evolve. However cooperation will tend to differentially survive because of the economic synergies – 

‘Wherever there are suckers there will be cheats but genes/memes act ‘as if’ calculating costs/benefits and all the optimistic conclusions about cooperation apply in the world of nature’. Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene.

This breakthrough in understanding has important implications for evolutionary economics and illuminates all decision making, there is a 'moral logic' emerging from the process of evolution – 

‘The key to doing well lies not in overcoming others but in eliciting their co-operation. Individuals don’t have to be rational; the evolutionary process alone allows the successful strategy to thrive, even if the players do not know why or how. Finally, no central authority is needed; co-operation based on reciprocity can be self policing’. Robert Axelrod – The Evolution of Co-operation.

Downward spirals of ‘tit for tat’ are not ‘evolutionary stable’ and such arms races will always eventually end because -

genes/memes calculate the cost/benefits and

random events always offer alternative options and help escape from the local cul-de-sacs.

It could be that the chances of discovering better cooperative strategies are increased if a diversity of options are generated and tested for survival value. Such diversity is encouraged in free democratic communities where behaviour has become conditioned by prior acceptance of the rules of cooperation and where moral and economic efficiency has tended to grow and spread.  

In summary cooperation is the guiding principle for decisions but there must be a proportionate defensive response to all cheats. Any undermining of this 'moral logic' must be confronted. It is the ultimate justification for the just war. 

This evolved strategy helps to explain how and why free democratic communities tend to prosper and how and why communities should respond when cooperation breaks down. 

b) Cultural History and the Evolution of Cooperation.

The unfolding of the history of conflict, 'nature red in tooth and claw', can be traced in the context of the evolution of the economic benefits of cooperation and their defence. Human behaviour and institutions emerge which provide cheaper ways of resolving conflict than bloody violence. 

Remember differences in belief are not the problem, incompatible beliefs can live side by side in competition or in splendid isolation. But when conflicting beliefs threaten harm to others natural selection kicks in and some ideas prove to have a greater survival value than alternatives.

Most societies have evolved a hierarchy of cost driven institutions which can help to encourage cooperation and resolve violent conflict – 

religion - communicating the accumulated wisdom of the past across the generations by revelation in ritual tradition 

persuasion - science is a process which discovers convincing truth by evidence from observation, explanatory theory, testable hypotheses, verifying experiments and peer review 

arbitration - law is a process which resolves disputes peacefully by prior acceptance 

lawful violence - an expensive last resort, used to enforce law when it breaks down. 

Cooperation is the priority – 

'If antagonists had they studied their economic textbooks more carefully they might have understood better that advantage lies in playing positive sum games with your partners’. Peter Jay - The Road to Riches.

... but violence must always be an inevitable last resort – 

‘It is necessary only for good men to do nothing for evil to triumph’. Edmund Burke (1729 – 97)

The evolution of the 'moral logic' of cooperation and its defence is embedded in the cultures of all lawful free democracies but it can unfold in many different ways. Evolution can never claim to construct the best social structures just better ones than the alternatives for some people, in some places, at some times -

'Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others which have been tried from time to time'. Winston Churchill.

The history of Anglo Saxon freedom and democracy is just one insightful example. Historian Michael Wood has pleaded that we should – 

'Understand more about the whole story of the Iron Age farmers of the Berkshire Downs, their tale is important because the history of this small island off the shore of Europe became World history, its speech became world speech, and, perhaps more important, its social and economic experience also became that of the rest of the world’. Michael Woods - A Search for the Roots of England.

The heart of the story is the inherited evolution of -

tort laws protecting individual freedoms

economic institutions which encourage specialisation & scale in trade and technological innovation

 enabling liberal democracies as cost effective alternatives to bloody violence  –

It can be interpreted as an ongoing discovery & accumulation process, bottom up cooperative survival synergies enable Joe Sixpack and his mates to respond to the top down impositions by Bishops, Princes, Generals and Bureaucratic majorities. The evidence can be traced as a continuous 'golden thread' ... not a Panglossian escalator to a pinnacle ... but rather an unfolding of cultural institutions which survived better than alternatives at particular times and places ... John F Kennedy summed it up -

'making life safer for diversity'

but where to start? ... maybe the continuity would be clearer if we ventured into 'deep' evolutionary history? ... but some 'modern milestones' are –

The first civilisation! Roots in Mesopotamia, 1800 BC Hamurabi was possibly the first to establish a codified structure of law over a large population, significantly this was in Babylon in modern Iraq!

The promise of increasingly intensive economic interactions in cities often stalled as the necessary tolerance and pluralism seemed unsustainable as early civilisations seemed unable to cope with -

external predators - stocks of riches become attractive targets

internal parasites - cooperative bonds break down

diminishing returns from tribute and agricultural investments

500 BC Axis Age philosophers - Elijah, Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, Mahariva, Zoroaster - all lived around the same time and all wrestled with same problem - how do you persuade your diverse citizens to act as moral human beings and so secure the benefits of specialisation and scale from 2 + 2 = 5 cooperation?

Democratic ideas! Greek democracy was a dramatic success but neglected defence and succumbed to the military efficiency of Macedonia and Rome. We the people actively participating in their own destiny!

Military supremacy! Roman citizens reaped the benefits from wining wars. Privileged and protected, they consolidated and spread wealth and Christianity widely but were eventually consumed by the old enemy of internal parasites and external predators. Efficient production requires specialised warriors for protection!

Boadicea & fierce independence! Barbaric Western tribal communities fought for survival both before and after the fall of Rome, with a zeal which reflected a competitive diversity which was often absent in the more monolithic civilisations elsewhere. Against all the odds tribal solidarity in defence of extended family and mates becomes an obligation!

Arthur & roundtable chivalry! Dark Age glimmers of hope came from active associations of like minded folk with honed skills and intense loyalty, courtesy, bravery, honour and gallantry towards the girls!

Alfred & nation building! Anglo Saxon Tithings rediscovered the ancient rule of thumb for social behaviour at the grass roots - property rights and the hue & cry - dispute resolution without resorting to violence -

individuals deal cooperatively with those they trust but refuse to interact with those they don't trust

individual rights to the protection of customary law was traded for an obligation to respect the rights of others - on pain of ostracism or payment of financial compensation.

The natural laws of the Tithings were built from the bottom up into Hundreds, then into Shires and Sheriffs and Kings ... the Vikings were coming! From solidarity is strength to strength in numbers!

Hereward the Wake & crowd trouble! 11th Century - Norman Feudalism, lords and sheriffs provided some protection and stability but the corrupt pecking order imposed arbitrary top down law suppressing enterprising folk and their active pursuit of wealth. Eventually English values of independent spirit and fair play eroded the feudal system and spread from the Fens to beyond the Berkshire Downs becoming ingrained in archetypical English serfs like Robin Hood! Justice is worth fighting for!

English Common Law! 12th Century - Common Law (1154) institutionalised the pre-existing Anglo Saxon values of rights and obligations for individual freedom throughout the kingdom. The Norman system failed to grow roots under the robust resilience of Anglo Saxon customary law and language!

Magna Carta! 13th Century - Runnymede (1215) Representative Parliaments (1265). Roger Bacon's Empirical Science. The king's power was eroded - no tax without representation. The absolute power to tyrannise and oppress could be constrained by customary law and wealth creation!

Hard times! 14th Century - Black Death disease wiped out 50% of the population and diminishing returns from agriculture produced desperate folk. Praying didn't help and faith in the Bishops was fundamentally undermined. Pockets of survival synergies emerged from money based trading by free men in free towns, not from soothsayers brandishing statutes. Following the lead of Northern Italy wealth and survival were no longer dependent on feudal land and serfdom. Private property and technological 'know how' were beginning to create an agricultural revolution with reliable surpluses to feed the towns. Subjects in the countryside and the cities were interdependent specialists bound together by 'compass or imagination' of English values symbolised in the Act of Treason (1351). The feudal Lords and Bishops at home and the belligerents overseas now had a viable lawful opposition!

Renaissance! 15th Century - Greek & Roman ideas about protecting rights of individual Citizens were rediscovered. The legacy of the humanist scholars constrained all tyranny and injected meaning into civilisation! 

Reformation! 16th Century - corrupt power of Bishops was defeated, free Christianity flourished, the Pope no longer oppressed the English serfs. Freedoms were cemented with the defeat of Philip 2nd, the armada and the Counter Reformation (1588). The right to question the impositions of the Bishops was confirmed! 

Glorious Revolution! 17th Century - arbitrary power of Monarchs was constrained with a 'Constitution' and a 'Bill of Rights'. Act of Usury (1624) Petition of Right (1628) Westphalia Sovereignty (1648) Constitutional Monarchy & Bill of Rights (1688). Freedoms were consolidated in the checks and balances of constitutional law! 

Enlightenment! 18th Century - innovative ideas and the Scientific Revolution were triumphs, the survival synergies from technological 'know how' were discovered and accumulated. Overseas imperial adventures were focused more & more on sugar & spice and less & less on Gog & gold. The survival progress of entrepreneurs was protected from backsliding English monarchs in the New World by a written US Constitution with robust checks and balances on all power to impose. Hobbes & Leviathan, Locke & Universal Freedom. A vote of confidence from Scotland & the Act of Union (1707) and Adam Smith & the Scottish Enlightenment explained British values to the English empirical practice! Freedoms were spreading internationally! 

Industrial Revolution! 19th Century - mass production technology sowed the seeds of global capitalism and the mercantilist ideas of Napoleon were defeated. Reform Act (1832) Limited liability (1855). The of economic benefits of freedom within the law exploded! 

Wars to end all wars! 20th Century - world wars of the Kaiser and Hitler and Stalin's cold war resulted in defeat for the Generals and the politicians who sought to impose their own opposing ideas on the institutional 'know how' now embodied in free democratic capitalism. War on Demagogues (1914) Economic War on Ignorance (1929) War on Fascism (1940) Cold War on State Socialism (1989). From Empire to Commonwealth, from imposition to cooperation, freedom & democracy began to spread globally, regardless of gender, race, religion and petty party politics, these were universal values of tolerance and pluralism not tyranny and oppression. Capitalism triumphs over hubris, ignorance, fascism and socialism!

Cultural evolution? 21st Century - evolutionary competition continues, as new protection systems are required to protect global capitalist wealth form a new parasite, the civilian terrorist. The universal nature of the UDHR is established? And International Humanitarian Law is applied to the civilian terrorist?

A long slow evolutionary struggle over centuries, slowly building trust in the economic benefits of scale and specialisation and rule of law as a more efficient alternative to violence.

Again this 'golden thread' of history is not Whig history not some visionary ideal - it is a work in progress and simply how the cookie crumbled in some communities.

Not eradicating differences but celebrating differences as the evolutionary feedstock which is essential for synergies of cooperation.

By definition these cultural benefits of self determination cannot be imposed ... the evolution will take time but the same elements seem to be necessary for any functioning liberal democracy –

tort law to protect diverse minority beliefs, individual freedoms and to defend stocks by constraining parasites and predators thus enabling larger scale groups to specialise and trade in technology  

constitutional checks and balances on the authoritarian impulse of elites to impose their designs and taxes on Joe Sixpack

stabilising economic institutions for rewarding competitive success in discovering & accumulating survival value in 'know how'

The difficulty of establishing these elements of liberal democracy can be seen in the flow of more recent international history – 

After World War 1 The League of Nations attempted to consolidate future peace through international law. But even when the Law was agreed it proved unenforceable.

After World War 2 The United Nations tried again, with a small quick response Security Council. 
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a post Nazi attempt to consolidate international law.
The Geneva and Hague conventions (International Humanitarian Law) were also updated in an attempt to consolidate the rules of war after Nazi war crimes.

Freedom and democracy and human rights are two sides of the same coin, self determination for 'we the people' with universal access to opportunity and protection from inflicted harm.

However, problems emerge – 

Freedom & democracy are not accepted as universally beneficial institutions. There is no agreement on the essential prerequisites nor the benefits of global capitalism. The collapse of the Eastern European dictatorships and socialist economic planning in 1989 has not resolved fundamental differences in beliefs, such deep disagreements render the UN ineffective. 

Nation States cling onto ‘sovereignty’ and a right to treat their citizens as they wish. Even national democracies do not always deliver protection for minorities. Some states view the UDHR as ‘Western Law’ designed to benefit the few and not evolved law which protects the many. The UDHR is based on the sanctity of the individual not the sovereign state - Article 8 suggests individuals have a remedy in law against harms as wrongs inflicted in the name of the Nation State - Article 10 declares the independence of the Courts from other branches of government and the right of individual appeal. Furthermore international trade involves interdependent communities which stretch far beyond artificial Nation State borders, exposing differences in national laws. The UN constitutionally assumes that the UDHR can be the responsibility of Nation States who disagree. 

International Law is proving impossible to define and enforce. Even when resolutions have been passed, there has been difficulty in agreeing on lawful violence as a last resort response to rogue states and civilian terrorists.

Principles of rights based international law and the rules of war continue to evolve but to date the United Nations is struggling to agree and enforce them. Perhaps the first priority is to speed up an agreed definition of a civilian terrorist. Clearly both terrorists and freedom fighters will claim the moral high ground of peaceful cooperation and retaliatory defence?

The UN is a paradox – 

human rights are universal but 

international law cannot be enforced by Nation States who disagree.

The UDHR is a paradox – 

negative rights (protection from inflicted harms as wrongs) can be enforced by Court restraining orders on the perpetrators – defendants exist 

positive rights (acquisition of jobs, food and health) are attained only by voluntary cooperation where 2 + 2 = 5 opportunities exist, otherwise Article 30 is violated - defendants don't exist.

The crucial relevance of the history of these evolved institutions is that a decision to go to war cannot be made in isolation by individual incumbents. Any decision is an integral part of evolved cultural institutions.

All cooperative cultural institutions will defend themselves from attack ... otherwise they wouldn't exist ...

c) Evolving Evolutionary Ideas.

There is way to go to reach Kennedy's hope of making the world safe for diversity ...

A focus on the real pragmatic consequences of decisions and ideas or their 'evolutionary function' may help.
Tentatively, can evolution help distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters? Between offensive and defensive bullets? Between cooperators and predators? 

One idea is that morality itself evolves, perhaps evolutionary analysis can help us to distinguish between good, evil and 'spin' –

cooperative strategies tend to evolve in free and democratic societies where the benefits of cooperation are grown and defended from predators and parasites by law and by resorting to violence to enforce the law. This evolution has led to rights based law embodied in the UDHR. This suggests that law and morality evolve based on 2 + 2 = 5 positive sum synergy - which is ‘good’? 

predatory and parasitic strategies also evolve which inflict harm through unlawful violence and theft of benefits through terrorism or the threat of terrorism. This suggests that parasites and predators evolve but don't contribute based on 2 - 2 = 0 zero sum - which is ‘evil’? 

countless imaginary ideas which are believed to be true are constantly championed relevance but are nothing more than imaginary experiments until tested against the rigors of reality and their evolutionary survival significance established - unproven ideas are ‘spin’? 

For example, many ideas about dispute resolution are simply experimental attempts to improve the evolutionary tit for tat algorithm –  

voting - but failing to protect minorities who may lose 

appeasement - but failing to provide a remedy for victims 

procrastination - but failing to develop cooperative trust by a clear, simple, timely and emphatic response and failing to enforce the law as an alternative to violence 

Maybe it is ideas about the evolution of good and evil that define the institutions of freedom and democracy, and define the differences between cooperators and parasites, and terrorists and freedom fighters. Some people have access to evolved remedies in international law but choose terror. Others don't have access to law, are tyrannised and oppressed and fight for their freedom?

Again the institutions of freedom and democracy, by definition, require a defensive response to terrorist threats ... otherwise they wouldn't exist ... think about it ...

3. The Application of Cooperative Tit for Tat in Iraq.

The decision to go to war in Iraq is consistent with a deep belief in the evolved tit for tat strategy which is a cultural legacy of some Western civilisations.

Regardless of how good and evil, terrorism and freedom fighters are defined there is some agreement amongst some people that some harm had been inflicted on innocents by the regime in Iraq which required a response. There was a problem which wouldn't go away and required confrontation. Iraq was not living in benign isolation but threatening, trading and interacting and other cultures.

Iraq was in continuing material breach of current rights based international law –

external invasion of Kuwait 

internal massacres of Shiite communities and the use of weapons of mass destruction on Kurdish communities 

failure to verify disarmament as required by UN resolutions resulting in a failure of trust necessary for ongoing interactions

Persuasion had failed (fundamental difference in beliefs), international law had not been enforced (18 resolutions and failed trade sanctions), the enforcement of law, by force was a last resort. 

The debate at the UN appeared to be about the level and timing of the commensurate response or 'serious consequences' not about guilt or innocence.

However the real schism was about cultural beliefs and values.

Some points from evolutionary theory and history that are relevant to the decision to respond –

throughout evolutionary time disputes have been settled through violence, recently cheaper, more effective alternatives like international law have evolved

cooperative 'tit for tat’ strategy encourages mutual benefits by building trust over time by repeated interactions

cooperative 'tit for tat’ strategy requires 'commensurate, clear, simple, timely and emphatic retaliation to aggressive acts and threats' 

commensurate responses to all illegal activity are essential for the survival of democracies

commensurate responses are perceptions which will be different for different people

evidence is also a perception, massively diverse, dispersed, incomplete and complex, a matter of trust and the Iraqi disarmament had not convinced the UN court and jury

outcomes of decisions are unknowable, the cooperative tit for tat strategy must be applied blindly, it is the credible response that is the essential policy, the outcome of the war in Iraq maybe civil war, maybe democracy, maybe new states, no one knows the outcome nor the timescale 

UDHR and Article 8 transcends nation states, every individual Kuwaitian, Shiite & Kurd has a right to a remedy in law, evolved law is not the result of a global vote, decisions can be taken by a ‘coalition of the willing’ 

Some questions from evolutionary theory and history which are relevant –

 was 10 years and 18 UN resolutions reasonable before a timely enforcement of international law? 

were 'shock and awe' tactics a commensurate response? 

have the unforeseeable consequences of action made the situation worse or better, for which groups of people and on what time scale?

Evolutionary analysis clearly identifies separate issues –

an evolutionarily stable strategy to respond and 

the unforeseeable consequences of any action.

It is clear that exactly the same reasoning applies to the belief that the USA was the aggressor - if persuasion fails, if international law is violated, lawful violence is an essential last resort. 

4. The Confirmation of the Policy of Cooperative Tit for Tat.

The ‘Rice Doctrine’ was confirmed by George W Bush's inaugural address after re-election in 2005. Prior to 9/11 Tony Blair clarified policy in a speech in Chicago in 1999 and reconfirmed policy in his Los Angeles speech in July 2006, again after re-election.

The policy is consistent with an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy of cultural 'tit for tat’ which encourages cooperation and confronts cheats – 

a) Universal Benefits. Deep Cultural Belief. The synergistic survival benefits from economic specialisation & scale which emerge from the evolved institutions of freedom and democracy are universal.  

‘America’s pursuit of national interest will create conditions that promote freedom, markets and peace, something that benefits all humanity’ - Condoleezza Rice Promoting the National Interest, Jan/Feb 2000.

'The durable wisdom of our constitution, the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world' - George W Bush inaugural address 2005.

"What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just, more fair than the alternative" - Tony Blair Los Angeles speech 2006.

This is at the heart of the battle of ideas and the schism in beliefs.

More and more communities have joined the global 'gravy train', most recently the Eastern European countries and the massive populations of China and India have started to integrate, but, perhaps significantly, many in sub Saharan Africa and the Islamic Middle East have tended to be absentees. 

Like all adaptations these ideas are statistical tendencies for growth in populations, in every country there will be believers and non-believers. Some folk will wish to participate others will not, but only the institutions of freedom and democracy will enable the opposing beliefs to exist side be side within a legal frame work. Democracy is not a 'winner takes all' voting system, it is appropriate responsive institutions that enable trial and error experiments and elimination of unsuccessful outcomes. These institutions will eventually arise from Iraq's own culture and choices. 

b) Retaliation. Established Cultural Behaviour. To survive there must be a commensurate, clear, simple, timely and emphatic responses to all attacks and threat of attack against freedom and democracy.  

‘In self defence America will act against terrorist threats before they are fully formed’ – Condoleezza Rice National Security Strategy 2002.

'The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the world. This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats' - George W Bush inaugural address 2005.

'Come into the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted' - Tony Blair Los Angeles speech 2006.

Historically, the institutions of freedom and democracy have emerged relatively recently and opposition to the 'gravy train' of expanding global capitalism has often been the norm. Again at the heart of this opposition is the schism in beliefs. A belief in the efficiency of top down command and control will require a 'top peck' who is 'in charge'. In this case the evolutionary process of globalisation it appears chaotic and 'red in tooth and claw'. The alternative counter intuitive process of evolution which spawns international law and cooperative synergies is often misunderstood.

Consistently throughout history this opposition has eventually been confronted, otherwise the institutions would not have survived. Nevertheless in free societies where divergent beliefs are protected, it is often difficult for the law to protect the 'gravy train' from derailment, particularly where the disruptive action and threats come from civilian terrorists with access to weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore a legal dilemma surrounds 'pre-emption' which inevitably requires action against unidentified individuals before the evidence of illegality is available for the courts. Clarification of international law defining terrorism, enticement to violence and procedures for captured civilians without 'rank or number' identification are still outstanding ...

Policy cannot define the nature of the tactical response but policy must be clear about the inevitability of a strategic response. However, because future outcomes are unknowable, the nature of 'commensurate', 'clear', 'simple', 'timely' and 'emphatic' is simply a 'best bet experiment', an option available at the time. 

Retaliation is essential foreign policy for survival, it is not new, there is a rich ongoing history of confronting dictators and seeding democracy. Doing nothing and appeasement are not options in the long term war of ideas about law and human rights. The example of English ancient history, outlined above, and Jeffersonian democracy in the USA, reveals the consistency of policy and Tony Blair's Chicago speech in 1999 argued the case for retaliation and the unavoidable necessity of globalisation.

Recent policy is a consistent response to impositions and threats of dictators. Many threats many confrontations, including many smaller players; Ulbricht, Kim Il-sung, Nasser, Ho Chi Minh, Verwoerd, Galtieri, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein ... 

c) Helping. Economic Cultural Ethic. A moral obligation exists to help folk everywhere to confront tyranny & oppression. A Remedy in Law is an evolving Human Right for all mankind, the Sovereign State has no right to treat its citizens as it wishes, and democrats living in 'rogue' states need help.

‘The desire for freedom transcends race, religion and culture. The people of the Middle East are not exempt from this desire. We have an opportunity, and an obligation, to help them turn desire into reality. That is the security challenge and moral mission of our time’ – Condoleezza Rice National Convention of the National Association of Black Journalists 2003.

'Every man and woman on this earth has rights, the imperative is self-government. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way' - George W Bush inaugural address 2005.

'You can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders, you have to defeat its ideas. It is about hearts and minds, about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for. We should support, nurture, build strong alliances with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernising path' - Tony Blair Los Angeles speech 2006.

By definition, freedom and democracy cannot be imposed. Help for the suppressed can result from toppling dictators but the emergence of institutions as the alternative to conflict can only come slowly from within the community itself. The toppling of Saddam and destroying his personal army was 'mission accomplished' and 'the rest is up to the Iraqi people themselves' who now have an opportunity to start the slow process of building institutions and embracing democracy.

Evolving human rights can put the individual at odds with the Nation State so internal policy matters. In every State there will be groups with different beliefs each with a right to protection within the law. Once rights are protected the institutions of freedom and democracy and global capitalism will tend to evolve as some individuals with some property rights are free to act and trade to secure mutual benefits if others are not harmed in the process. The policy offers ongoing help to democrats to secure those universal benefits, wherever they are, however few there are. Foreign policy should be based on helping more and more folk to join the gravy train 'a leg up not a hand out' it's 'tough love' !

There is a ‘sting in the tale’, there is no general agreement about the evolution of policy, there is a schism of beliefs, policy is an ongoing process, there is no winning post, predators and parasites will always evolve, terrorists and intelligent designers who aspire to impose their ideas on Joe Sixpack will always exist and will always oppose the evolved institutions of freedom and democracy. There is no easy way out, evil exists and must be confronted, freedom and democracy evolves and is in the hands of 'we the people' … 

5. Conclusion. 

A decision to go to war is far more important than trivial games of ‘hide and seek the bomb’ or betting on outcomes or petty party politics. Things are a tad more complicated than that and such simplistic knee jerk hysteria will only encourage the terrorist wedges.

Cultural behaviour based on tit for tat has evolved over aeons and the theory explains how and why the cooperative institutions of freedom and democracy emerge and thrive and exposes the folly of failing to confront threats.

The decision to use force was the only evolutionarily stable response to a failure to persuade and to a failure to enforce rights based law in the face of ongoing threats.

Perhaps we can go further. It is quite impossible, physically impossible, for any evolved system of cooperation to grow and prosper in the absence of defensive responses to attacks. The environment can never be safe, more survival 'know how' always results in more niche opportunities for predators and parasites. Alternative evolutionarily unstable strategies must always fail ... in the end.

Confrontation is essential for survival but outcomes of confrontation are unknowable ... outcomes will emerge from the decisions of the people of Iraq and the institutions which evolve there … that is the nature of freedom and democracy … and ultimately it is free democratic institutions which define the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists … 

john p birchall

back to some fun