The case of the Syrian gas attack

I don't want to abuse the Syrian poison gas incident, it's so gruesome I don't even want to watch the images. I am kind of suspecting one of Assad's soldiers used them out of his own accord. But I have to discuss the politics regarding the attack. Even if it is for future reference.

Around the time when the Nobel peace prize committee awarded their prize to Obama, I finished my psychological model which predicted Obama would not be free from human instincts and his new environment. He was just as able to do war as anybody would be in that position. Even you. Except if it was you, the wars would have been justified. Of course.

Following the gas attack, politicians (including Nobel peace prize-winner Obama) wanted to start a punitive expedition. Even if they don't really know who did it. It makes no sense, but it is instinct. Not all instincts are good.

Q: Do you understand this move? Courthouses in the Netherlands don't like to judge too harshly because it doesn't work.  Also punishment is not really working well when raising children. Is Obama's strategy effective at all?

Putin protects his friend Assad. He has no choice. Besides he can make a nice show of force by preventing violence and he likes that. Even I like it. It is human nature.

Q: What if Putin didn't help his friend Assad? Would that be right or wrong? Why?

Putin dominates Obama, who concedes as I sort of expected. Obama doesn't seem to be as badass as Putin. Besides Putin and his advisors made a plan ("creative" in the model) which sounds a lot better than throwing bombs - disarmament. Obama can't really refuse.

Q: What else can Obama do? Would that be right or wrong? Why?

This is how to read my psychological model.


Putin tries to influence America using a letter containing all kinds of "truths" ie. confirmation bias. It might also work to improve his image a bit. Some people like peacekeepers. People are discussing the contents of the letter in detail. Some are upset, while others seem to praise this move for "peace". I didn't read all of it. I'm sure most of it makes sense but when you think it over it will just be a collection of opportunistic hypocritical statements.

Assad is resisting the pressure and making some demands. Display. There is no ratio in this. He just wants to show some resilience. He wants the US to stop threatening. I doubt the demands will be fully met, or the threats wouldn't have been made in the first place. Assad doesn't read this blog apparently. Neither does Obama. Negativity doesn't really work other than to kickstart more negativity (reciprocity). This is a well known fact in Dutch courthouses.


Putin has been nominated for a Nobel peace prize. I told you in the second step of my analysis he was doing it for show and he knows it. No high-ranking politician should ever be given the Nobel prize unless they're autistic. Autistic people often don't reciprocate.


Obama defends the U.S. policy. He is being a hypocrite because earlier on he accepted Putins plain better idea of disarmament. Which is better than the U.S. policy of bombing, so why defend it? (Display, he is compensating for the humiliation of being dominated by Putin so we all know who’s boss. Peace prize be damned.)

Thing is, it’s normal. He can’t help it, everyone would do it.

© Koos Swart 2013