No Replacement For Displacement

We've got the nuts at the UN

I haven't mentioned it here before, but I am an avid poker player(I'm not a great player, but I love the game). Usually I will play either 7 card stud(2 down then 5 up then 1 down at the end) or I will play a game called Texas Hold 'em, where each player is dealt two cards individually, and then five community cards are dealt(two individual cards, then 3 community cards(the flop), then one more community card(the turn) and finally the last card(the river). You make the best hand using the cards you hold plus the cards on the board. There are other games, Hi-Low games and such, but they are beyond the scope of this post.

In Texas Hold'em there is a term known as having the nuts, or having the nut straight, or nut flush(Ace high), etc. In the parlance of the game, that is the absolute strongest hand that can be made using the five cards on the table. Having the nuts is a very good thing. It means you can afford to slowplay a hand(pretend you have a much weaker hand than you do) and it means that you can be 100% confident that you will scoop the pot at the end of the hand.

Also, in poker, there are a number of strategems you can use to get the pot. First there is the obvious way, having the strongest hand at the table. The second way is to bluff. You bet and raise, with the idea towards making other players think you have a stronger hand than you actually do. One thing about bluffs, is often the player engaging in the bluff projects a rather aggressive stance. He'll stare you down, act intimidating, and generally try to make himself look strong. Bluffing is rarely done in a casual manner.

There is also a form of reverse bluff. Instead of bluffing to project strength, you bluff to project weakness. For example, I was playing in a 7 card stud game, and with the fifth card, I made a full house, queens full of deuces(3 queens, 2 deuces). This is a very strong hand, and I didn't want anyone to drop by my betting. So, instead of jumping out with a bet/raise right a way, I let out a loud moan when the deuce paired. The other players happily bet and raised, because they believed that I had crap, but I took the pot(and a big pot it was).

There are different kinds of poker players. Rocks, very tight, passive players, never play anything unless it is the absolute best hand, and will throw away just about everything else. Maniacs bet and raise with any two cards. Calling Stations do just that. Every hand, they call. They rarely raise, and they rarely fold. They basically just tag along for the ride. Sometimes you lose to a calling station, but mainly they just donate money to the pot.

One thing I've noticed is how much diplomacy is like poker, and the goings on in regard to Iraq can be put into poker terms pretty well. Iraq is the prototypical inebriated maniac player. Saddam is holding a lousy hand(a ten and a deuce before the flop), but he is betting and raising like mad. He thinks that by raising any bet, acting bellicose, and staring real hard at the other players, they'll fold. Its worked for him pretty well in the past ten years, so he thinks it will work again now. Of course he is bluffing, but he thinks his bluffing will work forever. However, all he is doing is digging himself a deeper hole.

France and Russia are each holding a pair of Kings(the UN Veto). Both have a big stake in the pot from previous rounds of betting, and now are engaging in one last raise on the hope that the US and Iraq will drop their hands, and and France and Russia can share the pot. The problem is that Saddam has had his fifth shot of Jack Daniels in the last hour, and really thinks he can win with his pair of deuces, so he will raise until he is out of money.

China held a pair of nines at the initial deal, and Jiang Zemin decided that he didn't want to waste money on such an obvious loser, and threw away his hand, instead waiting for the pair of pocket Aces which he will get--someday.

The rest of the UNSC got their two cards, and called, like they do just about every time they get dealt a hand(or asked to vote on a resolution)

Finally, there is the US, with his friend Britain watching from the rail. The US holds the nut flush(a congressional resolution), and has held it right from the flop. Bush isn't going to project too much strength. In fact, it is to his advantage to project weakness. Witness all the talk about how Iraq might be able to avoid being invaded if they comply, etc. Bush wants Saddam to raise the bet again(deny his WMD program exists). He wants Saddam to raise, and raise, and raise. Bush wants this, because no matter what, Bush is holding the nut flush and cannot lose. Saddam's bluff is DOA, but Saddam is convinced somehow that it will work. France and Russia are hoping against hope that Bush will drop his hand, but even they realize that is a losing proposition, so their attempt will ultimately fail, and if they don't drop their hand soon, they could lose a lot more than what they have already bet(Lukoil and ELF Fina). But they are trying to do something to stop him, but eventually they'll drop, because while losing the oil concessions is bad, losing their Security Council vote is worse.

Saddam, however, because he is drunk(Jack Daniels, dictatorial power, same thing), is going to raise. Bush is going to raise him back, and Saddam will raise again, and eventually, all of Saddam's money(power) is going to wind up in Bush's hands, and Saddam will lose his entire bankroll(or get hung from the nearest lamppost).

So when you hear about the gnashing of teeth about how the UN is dragging their feet, remember something. Bush could end this charade any time he wants by launching military action. The reason he's not isn't because he can't, but because it is in our best interests for him not to. He is playing Saddam, and the Russians, and the French, and at the end, the result is going to be the same it would have been before. There are only two possible outcomes: The UNSC approves our action, and we invade Iraq(and win the pot) or the UNSC vetoes our resolution, and we invade Iraq(and the UNSC becomes irrelevant in the process). Either way, Saddam falls, and the FrancoRussian oil concessions are dead.

Update: In response to Cato's post, I think I need to clarify/change the situation France and Russia are in. France and Russia are now engaging in what is known in the poker world as a crying call. The crying call is a bet that is called when you have every expectation of losing. You are calling the bet not to win, but on the notion that you probably won't win, but you need to see the cards anyway. The problem, in France and Russia's case, is that they are between Iraq and the US. So the more they try to defend the oil interests, the more likely it is that the United States will consider the UN irrelevant, and that cost is more than I think either country is willing to bear.