There are relatively few individuals within the United States government who understand how, for example, Napoleon used the strategy of the central position in the Hundred Days campaign. Nevertheless, there is almost no one who would not understand, “It’s fourth and ten—we have to punt.”
The games we play represent our first, and arguably our most important, strategic language. Sports games such as American football, soccer, or basketball, tabletop games such as chess or go, and even video games such as Star craft or League of Legends provide a common, implicitly learned language of strategy.
This language channels strategic thinking while facilitating communication. These games not only influence the strategic planning of countries, but also of important world leaders. Just as it is possible, for example, to see elements of American football in US strategic thinking, it is also possible to see the fundamental premises of judo, Vladimir Putin’s sport, in Russia’s efforts to use.
It is, of course, possible to overextend this insight. Games are certainly not the only influence on a culture’s, a country’s, or a person’s strategic thinking. History, education, economics, politics, as well as the broader context of the situation play a role. That said, games, despite their obvious influence, have historically been underexamined as both an inspiration and a catalyst for strategic thought.
Found in settlements throughout the Viking world, it is hard not to see this game as a simulation of the Vikings’ worst-case scenario—a small group of raiders, cut off from their boats, must hold a large force at bay and escape. The game implicitly reinforces several lessons that would be useful.
If more modern sports and games are implicitly teaching strategy to national security decision makers, what are these decision makers likely learning about defining victory, achieving it, and managing the resources available? That, of course, likely depends on the game.
Virtually all games have some sort of victory condition associated with them. Baseball, for example, is one of many games where the team with the higher score at the end of the game wins. Implicit in this, of course, is that someone is keeping score and that it is possible to have an end. Neither condition is true in geopolitics yet American football, at least, offers frequent exposure to this kind of thinking. That, in turn, has to have an impact on both professional and public expectations.
Sports and games played and enjoyed over a lifetime undoubtedly influence the strategic thinking of individuals. To the extent that these activities are well-known or widely played, they also arguably influence the way national security decision makers think and act when making strategic decisions. Perhaps most importantly, however, these sports and games create the language with which senior leaders can better communicate their plans and intentions to fellow citizens. While the exact nature of these connections is clearly a subject for future studies, such studies will likely shed light on the wide range of influence the implicitly learned lessons of games continue to have on the strategic thinking of leaders across the globe.
You must be logged in to post a comment.