For people who want to learn more about foreign policy and geopolitical struggles but don’t feel like reading a library’s worth of history books, I recommend playing Risk. (Especially those of you who enjoy game theory, Facebook has a nice application called Attack, if you’re interested.) In what I consider the greatest board game ever invented, players use armies to control nations and continents and battle each other in an effort to ultimately control every single piece of territory on the globe.

A recent commentor observed that since World War 2, the world has essentially been playing a giant game of Risk, with only a few variations:

1. Supplies are not unlimited

2. The game never ends

This is the trouble of playing a game of global geopolitical dominance: the game never ends. In Risk, when one player manages to wipe out all of his opponents armies and controls every territory on the map, the game is over, and he or she is declared the winner. In history, nations who have succeeded in this quest, namely Rome, Britain, and the United States have to maintain control over their empires. Doing so requires an enormous amount of resources and over a long enough time period, becomes impossible and the empire collapses on itself.

The most recent historical example of this precedent is the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite what Russophobes will tell you in light of the war with Georgia, Russia is not, and cannot ever reclaim the power that they once wielded.

This weekend during a game I came across a scenario that eerily resembled America’s current struggle with Islamic extremists.

At the outset of the game, I took control of Australia.

* Australia is considered by most experts to be the ideal continental base in a multi-player game.

* This is because Australia is a small area: you are only required to control 4 territories to gain the bonus for the continent.

* Australia is by far the easiest to defend. Siam is the only way to gain access to this area, which is set far apart from where the action usually takes place in Risk.

* But controlling Australia is also a double-edged sword: because it’s so small and relatively easy to defend, the bonus that comes with its dominance is not very large.

Players who are able to conquer larger continents like Africa or Europe build up armies quicker and therefore become more dangerous.

In order to offset the extra armies that my opponents were gaining on each turn, I decided to stretch my sphere of influence into Asia as much as possible. My armies took control of China, India, Japan, a few baltic states, and Kamchatka. The extra territories that I gained gave me an extra bonus, and because my base was not under direct threat from any other armies, I was able to defend them.

Until…

The player who had North America decided that he wanted to stretch into Asia as well, and given his greater resources, he was able to do so successfully. He took me out of Kamchatka and the baltic states. On my next turn, I struck back and took control of most of the territory I had lost. We continued this tit-for-tat for several turns. Generally speaking, the territories that we were fighting over have no strategic importance to anyone in the long run. Nobody tries to conquer all of Asia, and those who do usually find themselves out of the game very quickly.

Considering that the North American player had far bigger bonuses than me, I found it upsetting that he insisted on controlling these minor Asian territories. I warned him to stay out. When he refused to back off his claim of the territories, I pushed hard and managed to take Alaska away from him, robbing him of his bonus for the next turn. My goal was to teach him that he had little to gain from a prolonged conflict over these insignificant states, and hoped that he would turn his aggressions to the players controlling South America or Europe.

Instead, he pushed back and sent his armies on a path of destruction stretching all the way from Kamchatka to Indonesia.

The move severely diminished the size of my army and overstretched his forces, leaving his western borders open for an attack.

Now that there was no conceivable way that I could win the game, I decided to take the North American player down with me. Once I got a large bonus, I went on the offensive and pushed back north through all of Asia, then into Alaska. Whether the dice were with me or not, I had planned to go all out. Luckily, I was getting good rolls and so I continued the campaign until I managed to destroy his entire force in Greenland. This left him wide open to attack from his European rival. Two turns later, we were both destroyed and scooped up by the European player.

So, what can this Risk game teach us about global resource conflicts?

I found that my position was very similar to citizens of small Islamic nations. For hundreds of years, they have been dominated by greater, usually Western powers. From the French in Algeria, to the Russians in Afghanistan, to the Brits and the Americans in Iraq, they have usually been occupied by countries far richer and more powerful than they.

During the middle of my conflict with the North American player, I asked him why he was screwing with me in Asia, when he had everything he needed. He did not respond, but continued to push me around using his larger forces. Because I had no chance of winning the game, I decided, in essence, to perform a suicide bombing.

This is a very common tactic in Risk. When less fortunate players feel singled-out or dominated, they often choose to go on a Kamikaze mission to destroy their tormentor.

Which brings us to the Middle East and its oil.

For the sake of this argument, please spare me the idea that we are in the region to liberate its people from oppressive regimes. After all, one of the first names the administration dubbed the conflict was Operation Iraqi Liberation.

What does the United States have to gain through a foodhold on the world’s dwindling oil supplies? 50 years ago permanent military bases in the middle east may have been prudent, from a purely empirical standpoint. Today we know that the global supply of crude oil isn’t going to last but for another century at best, and a few decades more at worst.

The US may be gaining strategic advantages over hostile states by controlling Middle Eastern oil, but in exchange we are sacrificing our long term financial and physical national security. The cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to sink us into debt for years to come, while at the same time we’re creating new generations of Jihadists.

When you think about their point of view from a Risk perspective, suddenly, they don’t seem so crazy after all. If you’re trapped in a corner and can’t win the game of global domination, you might as well take the one responsible down with you.