Application Writing Assignment
The President of the United States of America in august this year declared the states intention to carry out military strikes on Syria. The main reason for the move was perhaps because Assad, the ruling regime had utilized chemical weapons against its own citizens while combating rebels who had created internal conflicts in the country for over two years. The claim generated many reactions across the globe with many Western countries supporting the decision made by United States President.
The Framing Theory in Psychology
Despite the fact that congress had approved US military strike on Syria, many of US citizens did not support it. Many of them felt that there was a government’s hidden agenda by striking Syria, who economic and political system had been crippled by continued conflicts. Additionally, many advocacy groups felt that the government was swift in accusing Assad of the atrocity that left 1,300 civilians dead from Sarin, a fatal chemical weapon.
Not only once did the government of the United States of America consider the possibility that rebels could have been responsible for the massacre. Lack of citizen’s support whose governments were of the opinion that the strike should go on can be described by the mounting scheme in psychology (Poteau, 2013). Framing theory also suggests manipulation of situations and circumstances with the purpose of making a group or a person or group of people to appear responsible for the wrong actions.
The theory is often commonly witnessed in criminal law where many innocent people are charged or subjected to convictions and trials for the mistakes they did not commit. Framing others have also had a feud against them or are more likely to benefit from the process’s outcomes.
Framing in International Politics
Assad according to many people was framed for use of chemical weapon by the US because it is believed to have great interest in the Middle East. Therefore, the presence of US troops in Syria would enhance cementing of Western interests across the Middle East. Additionally, many countries in the Middle East have oil rich resources that creating the American interest in almost all of their affairs.
Framing of international regimes had therefore worked exceptionally well in the past years according to conspiracy theories. For any government, the first step to get a go ahead from its citizens is to into war to threaten them by adversary (Poteau, 2013). This is apparently known to have worked well during the time of Pearl Harbor attack that potholed the US against Japan.
Framing theory also seemed to have worked well when President Hussein of Iraq was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction. It was later on discovered that the country did not have any weapon of mass destruction after reason. However, the only reason why the US managed to attack Afghanistan and Iraq was because it felt threatened by the two countries.
Therefore, for many governments to apply framing psychology to create fear amongst their populations, they can get a go ahead to engage in whatever they feel like to feel safe. Syria’s problem however was the UK and the US because their citizens did not feel threatened in anyway by the government of Syria. As a result, they did not see any need why the US should interfere with the conflict that was going in the country.
Poteau, S.R. (2013). “Framing Syria: The Psychology of Pro vs. Anti U.S. Intervention.” Psychology Behind it All. Retrieved from: <http://psychologybehinditall.blogspot.com/2013/09/framing-syria-psychology-of-pro-vs-anti.html>