Applying Game Theory to Syria
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/applying-game-theory-to-syria-702675/
On August 21st chemical weapons were fired in Syria, (supposedly by the Syrian government) killing about 1,400 civilians. This led to President Obama calling for missile strikes, although many people questioned why the United States would intervene now, when the deaths of 100,000 Syrian civilians by conventional weapons had previously been ignored. This source is especially interesting because it uses an application of game theory to explain why the American intervention in Syria is important and necessary to uphold an essential social norm.
Game theory is applied to explain why the missile strikes against Syria were necessary because of the need to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons- a norm that is codified in the Geneva protocol and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Unlike many other international norms, the one against the use of chemical weapons is actually widely followed; chemical weapons have only been used twice since World War II. It’s important to note that through upholding this norm, governments occasionally are required to act against their own self-interest in the sense that although using chemical weapons could result in a victory, it is expected for restraint to be exercised.
This is relevant to Chapter 6 of Networks, Crowds, and Markets because it applies game theory to the situation to reveal the consistency behind President Obama’s decision. Social norms are very fragile, and if Syria did not face any consequences for the use of chemical weapons, it could potentially destroy the functioning of the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The leaders who only followed the norm out of fear of punishment would have taken the opportunity to now possibly get away with the use of chemical weapons, and countries would start using chemical weapons out of fear of being taken advantage of. Clearly, President Obama decided that the positive payoffs of intervening in Syria would far outweigh the negative ones.