I notice in this thread there is, now and then, a lotta hate for the Syrian rebels – for war crimes, cannibalism, inclusion of Islamist extremists. Also a lotta hate for the Assad regime, for all of the obvious reasons, plus for being an ally/puppet of Russia/Iran/Hezbollah. OTOH, some see Assad as a friend-to-Christians and to religious/ethnic minorities generally, who might well get savagely ethnic-cleansed, like in Iraq but worse (think 1970s-80s Lebanon on a bigger scale), if the rebels win.
Dammit. Who should I even be wanting to win this war?!
That’s easy: Local Coordination Committees, and the Syrian Revolution Coordinators Union are groups that should win. Unfortunately, their civil disobedient approach was met with sniper fire.
That leaves us with 1) Assad, 2) the FSA, and 3) Al-Qaeda-like organizations.
Of these groups, the victor most advantageous to the USA and our friends in the region would be the FSA. They will form a government along the Egypt - Tunisia - Libya spectrum. Their victory will result in the smallest exodus of Syrians from their country, will cause extraordinary damage to Hezbollah, will cause Russia and Iran to have wasted a lot of material without gain, and will be more cooperative with its neighbors. They will also be better supported by most of the population.
The least advantageous to the USA and our friends in the region is victory for Al-Qaeda-like organizations. They will form a theocratic regime that will ruthlessly punish any citizen for violation of its particular interpretation of Islamic law. They will become a base for extremism and will pillage the country to promote their varied causes. I doubt many of the refugees would want to return to such a country and many more would leave.
Assad’s victory will be a net negative for the USA and our friends in the region. It will empower Iran and Hezbollah and shut down any opportunity for regime change. Maybe none of the refugees will return to Syria and who knows what will happen to those Syrians perceived as rebels.
As long as what the majority of the population wants isn’t to persecute and drive out various minorities. So ideally the first step should be to examine if the current state is viable anymore. And if that seems not to be the case then perhaps it is best to admit that there is no way to put it back together and accept that the nation is split up like in the former Yugoslavia. Allegedly Assad is already establishing a base in the Alawite areas along the Mediterranean coast north of Lebanon. Most likely most of the Christians and other minorities will follow Assad. And in the northeast the Kurds are running their own show. The rest of the country can fall to the Sunni rebels if that is what the Sunni majority wants. In an ideal world each region and town will get to vote to which new nation they want to belong. The problem is of course in the details and whom Damascus should belong to. But in any case, it is not our call. They should sort it out themselves.
It has nothing to do with Arabs. Just look at the Russians, for instance; hell, Germany wouldn’t be a democracy if it weren’t for the Allied occupation. For elections to work, you first need a civil society that actually believes in democracy and the rule of law - that losing an election is OK, because another one will come along in a few years. That’s a long, complex process. Even here in Israel, I wouldn’t say we were truly democratic until the Labor Party first lost an election, 29 years after the country was established.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m always in favor of elections. We just have to remember that they’re the first step, not the last one.
For the record, I am not judging you. You make fair points in your post. I just know that at present democratic neighbours are not perceived to be in Israels interests.
The insurgents. I don’t know what whoever who will seize power will be like, but I know what Assad is like. A possible evil is better than a certain evil.
The problem is establishing a system that has sufficient legitimacy to survive one’s preferred party being voted out of power.
To be honest, I’m not sure exactly how that is achieved. May be a gradual process. The Turks seem to have managed it having tamed the spectre of military coups, as have the Israelis. Is it cause or effect that they are the most stable and significant powers in the area? Arguments could be made either way.
One think is for sure - simply announcing an election doesn’t create a democracy overnight, in a society that has no experience of it and is riven by harsh factionalism. The natural human tendency is for whoever is voted in, to sieze total control of the government and use all the levers of power to ensure no new honest vote is held.
Can Assad stay in power indefinitely? That is what I think may happen-the minorities that find Assad’s rule to be OK do not want to wind p living in an Islamist state (like Egypt seems to be becoming). Plus, Assad is on the hook for Russian arms (> $2 billion worth)-they don’t want to lose their investment in him. So this thing may well muddle along for years.
As others have said though-the USA should STAY OUT-there is nothing good for us in this conflict.
I say the rebels, no question, regardless of their Islamist ties. It’s very likely that something horrible will emerge in the early years of the fall of the Assad regime, but they’ll never have democracy if the Assad family doesn’t fall.
As for our intervention, the time to intervene was early, and I said the same thing about Libya. In both cases, we waited until the rebels were losing before intervening, which just serves to prolong the war and the suffering. If we’d backed the rebels when they were the strong horse in both cases, both wars would have ended swiftly, rather than seeing nearly 100,000 dead in Syria while we dithered.
It’s often said that war should be a last resort, but that assumes there’s no war and you plan to go to war. When there is already a war, the decision to get involved or not get involved should be made quickly. Waiting generally means that when you do get in, it’s much longer and more costly. And worse, you end up getting in when your enemy forces you to, on his timetable, rather than your own.
The best is a negotiated step down of Assad with some of Assad’s apparatchik remaining under a compromise leadership to help run things as true democratic elections are organized.
