Rough Triangles

The elementary model of robust plural order is the tripod. Whether taken as a schema for constitutional separation of powers, a deeper cultural matrix supporting decentralized societies, or a pattern of ultimate cosmic equilibrium, triangular fragmentation provides the archetype of quasi-stable disunity. By dynamically preempting the emergence of a dominant instance, the triangle describes an automatic power-suppression mechanism.

From the Romance of the Three Kingdoms to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, triangular fragmentation has been seen to present an important and distinctive strategic quandary. In power balances of the Mexican Standoff type, initiation of force is inhibited by the triangular structure, in which the third, reserved party profits from hostilities between the other two.

The Cold War, schematized to its basics, is the single most telling example. Rather than a binary conflict between East and West, the deep structure of the Cold War was triangular, making it intractable to two-player game-theoretic calculations. Catastrophic damage that might be rationally acceptable within a binary conflict, as the price for total elimination of one’s foe, becomes suicidal in a three-player game, where it ensures the victory of the third party. MAD-reason is no longer readily applied, once ‘mutual’ is more than two.

Even brilliant chess players lose their way in the triangle, where the economy of sacrifice has to be radically reconsidered. Among the Cold War’s Three Kingdoms, it was the chess masters who ‘won’ the race to defeat.

The lessons of the Cold War are no less relevant to its successor, which also fostered binary illusions in its early stages. America’s chess match with militant Islam resulted in a stalemate, at best.

Increasingly fierce Sunni-Shia rivalry recasts the current war as a rough triangle, captured in its strategic essentials by the colloquialism Let’s you and him fight. This was Cardinal Richelieu’s way with triangles, as ‘Spengler’ reminds us:

The classic example is the great German civil war, namely the 30 Years’ War of 1618-48. The Catholic and Protestant Germans, with roughly equal strength, battered each other through two generations because France sneakily shifted resources to whichever side seemed likely to fold. I have contended for years that the United States ultimately will adopt the perpetual-warfare doctrine that so well served Cardinal Richelieu and made France the master of Europe for a century (see How I learned to stop worrying and love chaos, March 14)

To imagine this policy being pursued with cold deliberation is the stuff of conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, regardless of whether anybody is yet playing this game, this is the game.

ADDED: A Couple of rough triangles links; George Kerevan at The Scotsman; and Clifford May at The National Post (who recalls Kissingers classic rough triangles comment — on the Iran-Iraq War — “It’s a shame they can’t both lose.”)

ADDED: Daniel Pipes is totally there: “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.”

ADDED: “With Western policy being so confused, ineffective, and ignorant, the divisions among enemies may be the best thing going.”

March 27, 2013admin 5 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized


5 Responses to this entry

  • k-virus Says:

    I don’t know where to pop this, but I thought of you when I read it tonight:

    “A process of deterioration in the human race cannot go on indefinitely, for mankind would wear itself out after a certain point had been reached. Consequently, when enormities go on piling up and the evils they produce continue to increase, we say: “It can’t get much worse now.” It seems that the day of judgment is at hand, and the pious zealot already dreams of the rebirth of everything and of a world created anew after the present world has been destroyed by fire.” (Kant, Political Writings)


    SDL Reply:

    Too totalizing. Almost an equivocation. The Prophet wants a fire that ends time and purifies the world once and for all. The Reactionary is more like a contemporary forestry expert: he just recognizes that a little conflagration and destruction now and then is a healthy thing, and that snuffing out every little flame that pops up is only going to lead to something really nasty in the long run.


    Posted on March 27th, 2013 at 4:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • ErisGuy Says:

    In the USSR: party, military, secret police.


    Posted on March 31st, 2013 at 1:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Remaking the Middle East by Breaking Syria | Theden | Thedening the West Says:

    […] One thing clear in even the most recent words of US officials is that the Assad regime does not have to go. The air raid is just to even things out. France has mentioned a political settlement, and Russia has pushed for one. The West’s approach may be an attempt at the ‘rough triangles’ strategy: […]

    Posted on September 7th, 2013 at 10:21 am Reply | Quote
  • what is to be done? – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] leeching on your resources. understand and predict their behaviors. be two (or more) steps ahead. triangulate. mostly avoid being a short-sighted idiot, which is already better then half the population of the […]

    Posted on February 22nd, 2017 at 8:11 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment