'Risk'y Buisness

All of the students in our class recently participated in a modified game of risk in which each team was given a specific goal to try and accomplish, rather than just conquest for world domination. The game of risk allowed us to understand one of the most difficult aspects of international relations and foreign policy that there is. No state knows what another state wants. Even if two states are allies with each other the true goals of each state is still widely unknown to one another.

We found out at the end of class that two teams, I believe it was the Blue team and the Red team, had nearly identical goals in regards to capturing the Ukraine or territory around the Ukraine. This obviously immediately brought forth conflict between the two teams and subsequently affected the rest of the players. As a member of the Black team, whose goal was to establish 15 alliances on the board, the tension between the two teams fighting each other was a major impediment on our goal. If the Blue team had an alliance with the Yellow team it became difficult to to convince the Yellow team to form an alliance with the Red team and so on. Another dilemma was that if you pushed too hard when negotiating with other teams they would start to become suspicious of what your intent was and begin to react more resilient to your offers or suggestions. The biggest threat to each team, however, was the fact  that each team was given a 'secret power' that could prove to be disastrous when used. Even for the team using their 'secret power' the full consequences were unknown. For example, when the Black team decided to censure the Yellow for a turn it forced them to initiate their 'secret power' and schism. This schism led to the eventual win of the Black team but nobody could have prepared for such a move.

This game of Risk really demonstrated the large variety of factors that a nations leader must take into consideration before making any 'risk'y moves in regards to international affairs. In many cases it is impossible to  truly understand the objective of a state and how they will react to any offensive move you make, whether it is geared towards them or another state entirely.

This mindset perfectly fits in to the argument of whether or not the United States should begin combating ISIS. Fighting a terrorist groups obviously looks good on paper and in the media but it is far from being as simple as just sending in a drone strike or marching into Iraq/Syria to stop them. There will be consequences. These may include upsetting an ally of Iraq or Syria who is displeased with the United States for engaging themselves in another countries affairs. And what's worse is that, just as Risk has shown us, many of the consequences are not foreseeable. This is the true risk of international relation.