The civil war in Syria has been going on for years now, and one report I read says that Assad has almost exhausted his cash reserves. Plus, his army is losing ground and men-it is getting hard to recruit new soldiers. Since Assad is a Western-oriented despot, and has opposed religious extremism (under him, Druse, Alawites and Christians were protected), would his fall turn Syria into another conflict between Muslim sects, with terrible bloodshed? Assad was no saint-he did launch poison gas attacks against Syrian people who opposed him. Still, ISIS dominating Syria could be worse.
Suppose we read (one morning) that Assad has flown off to Switzerland)-would peace break out or more bloody war?
Do you seriously not know the answer to your question? Seriously??
More bloody war. Not everyone fighting against him is a religious extremist although extremists have a lot of the power. Not every extremist group agrees with each other on the way forward. Once the common enemy is removed then the rest plays out. Defeat of Assad leaves a failed nation state with no one group in control.
Assad leaving is a transition to the next chapter not the happy ending to the novel.
And you do? You seriously know what would happen if Assad is removed? How do you know this? Do you use Merlin’s crystal ball or Galadriel’s magic mirror?
How can you be so sarcastic about someone not knowing the outcome of a hypothetical future event? No one knows.
I saw something today which claimed that Turkey and Saudi Arabia, not the best of friends, are teaming up to take him out. If true, I hope they have a plan for what follows.
Do the Russians have a lot invested in Assad? Assad allows the Russian Navy to use a base in Syria-is that enough for Putin to keep him in weapons?
I’m assuming you didn’t actually read the OP.
We were offered only 2 choices by the OP. Peace or war between different factions. What are the odds that peace will break out?
The Islamic State will take over the vast majority of the country: the predominently Sunni areas. The Alawites will retain control the areas where they are most of the population. The Kurds next to Iraq will align with Iraqi Kurds. Probably the rest of the ethnic areas will fall to the Islamic State, with some remaining with the Alawites.
You think the Ba’athists, who describe themselves as “radical socialist revolutionaries” are “western oriented”?
You are assuming very wrongly. Stop basing your posts on your own assumptions.
On a sliding scale, I’d say socialism is still more western than Islamism.
I think Syria will wind up like Iraq-in a state of continual civil war. now we are hearing politicians talk about creating a “safe zone” in Syria-who would be so foolish as to intervene in that place?
Saudi Arabia might, at least in terms of their own territory–they’ve had enough experience with home-grown extremism. I strongly suspect that Turkey, however, is operating on wishful thinking. One article I read pointed out that the US has learned that helping radical Muslims has a way of biting the helper in the rear end. I don’t think that Turkey has learned that lesson yet.
I’m sure that Putin will try. However, the recent drop in oil prices is really hurting Russia. Even besides that, indirect help simply may not be enough any more.
We’re not talking about Labour Socialists here. We’re talking about people who think the East Germans were pussies.
I’d certainly disagree with the idea that they are “more western” than the religious parties in Israel.
Socialism is a western political movement, Invented in western Europe around the time of the French revolution and the half century that followed. Is certainly more western than Orthodox Judaism, originally from the middle East.
He’s paid at least minimal attention to what’s been happening in the region over the last hundred years?
True, but the Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba have never been considered part of the West and their governments were never classified as “western oriented” nor claimed to be.
Now, I’ll concede if someone were to insist that Castro should be classified as a “western-oriented despot” then who should Assad and vice versa.
We’ve already had one thread where someone was vociferously arguing that East Germany and Cuba are(or were in the former’s case) democracies.
It will be Libya two.
That is an outdated way of thinking of “western”, during the cold war you had Communism (East) vs Capitalism (West), now things are not so simple but secularism is certainly more western than religious fundamentalism.
It’s basically up to the Iranian leadership. They need to be stretched a lot more than this to make negotiations worthwhile and they presumably wouldn’t desert Assad anyway.