“The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend” Is the Enemy: Dealing with the War-Provoking Rules of Intent

Abstract

A set of rules often invoked to explain or justify the evolution of intentions and the consequent behavior of competitive systems consists of the following: 1. The friend of my friend is my friend. 2. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. 3. The enemy of my friend is my enemy. 4. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. These rules have been modeled as a set of nonlinear, coupled differential equations from which predictions can be derived as to eventual alliance building or conflict in the system, predictions which are quite ominous for the behavior of simple three-body systems. This paper presents illustrations of the application of the rules to international behavior and discusses the relationship between the rules as usually verbally applied and the associated mathematical models. Not all of these rules are equally desirable: behavior in accordance to the fourth rule has led to major difficulties in the “real world.” This fourth rule cannot just be dropped, since the four rules are not independent of each other in the mathematical model. Hence the model must be altered. A simple mathematical modification is suggested which implies increased flexibility in the verbal statement and application of the rules; e.g., the fourth now reads “The enemy of my enemy may be my friend.” The altered model leads to altered predictions of the evolution of intent which are much less ominous for the outcome of three-body competitions.

Preferential Attachment, Homophily, and the Structure of International Networks, 1816–2003

“…Mearsheimer (1994/5: 13) articulates what realists mean by common interests: ''balance-of-power logic causes states to form alliances and cooperate against common enemies''. This implies that the ''enemy of my enemy is my ally'' homophily process tends to result in highly polarized international systems (Lee et al, 1994;Maoz et al, 2007;Saperstein, 2004). This implies that the ''enemy of my enemy is my ally'' homophily process tends to result in highly polarized international systems (Lee et al, 1994;Maoz et al, 2007;Saperstein, 2004).…”

What Is the Enemy of My Enemy? Causes and Consequences of Imbalanced International Relations, 1816–2001

“…First, such logic drives the international system towards bipolarity (Lave and March 1974, 67; Lee, Muncaster, and Zinnes 1994). Second, the risk of global conflict in such a system is very high (Saperstein 2004, 291–93) 2…”

“…3 3 Saperstein (2004) argues that Lee, Muncaster, and Zinnes's (1994) equations suggest a high probability of conflict between poles. By introducing some uncertainty into the “enemy of my enemy” principle these risks are reduced but not eliminated. …”

The Effects of Rivalry on Rivalry: Accommodation and the Management of Threats

“…The classic formulation “the friend of my enemy is my enemy” (Lee et al. ; Saperstein ) reflects the proposition that one set of state relations is interconnected with others. In formal depiction of these relationships, hostile or cooperative actions between two actors have ripple effects in a network of states tied to the original dyad.…”

“…Schrodt and Mintz (1988) were among the first to confirm the dyadic interdependence of conflicts, albeit not in the context of rivalry and limited to a small set of dyads. The classic formulation "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" (Lee et al 1994;Saperstein 2004) reflects the proposition that one set of state relations is interconnected with others. In formal depiction of these relationships, hostile or cooperative actions between two actors have ripple effects in a network of states tied to the original dyad.…”