Syria: delaying the inevitable
Bashar al-Assad is the master of delay, delusion, and self-deception, as the isolation of his regime increases
Comments (28)
Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Monday 31 October 2011 21.01 GMT
Article history
Eight months on, the uprising in Syria has changed. There is now a Free Syrian Army in Turkey claiming it has battalions across Syria. One such is the Khalid bin Walid battalion in Homs, a unit of several hundred army officers and soldiers who defected and now shoot back when demonstrations are fired on, ambush troop convoys, and kill regime informers. Protesters gathering in Homs and Hama, the frontline of the anti-regime protests – the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 40% of the people killed in the uprising came from Homs – are now calling on Nato to establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Week by week, the land is descending into civil war.
There are few signs, however, that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad has changed. Like his fellow dictators in their final days, he is a man in denial. As 40 died at the hands of his security forces in the last few days, and Homs came under sustained assault, Assad talked in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph of a turning tide of support for the government, where the army were only targeting terrorists. In the past, an Assad speech promising reform or an interview saying he was ready to talk to the opposition was a sure prelude to yet another violent crackdown. This interview could turn out to be no different. He is the master of delay, delusion, and self-deception, as the isolation of his regime increases. Former allies peel away – first Turkey, then Saudi Arabia, and now the Arab League. But Assad was right on one point – if his regime fell the whole region would change. Unlike Egypt or Tunisia, Assad's Baáthist regime stands at the crossroads of a complex network of alliances.
If the regime fell, it would affect more than the resistance network of Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas's external leadership is already preparing its move from Damascus, after it incurred the wrath of its hosts by failing to condemn the uprising, and will probably move to Turkey, Jordan and Qatar. Hezbollah, which unequivocally supported the Syrian leadership, would lose a vital lifeline of military support from Iran. But beyond them, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran would all be shaken to the core if the majority Sunnis in Syria returned to the ascendancy. In Iraq there are already signs of the Sunnis demanding Kurdish-style autonomy from the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. If it lost Syria, Iran would lose the central plank of its regional power, and its regime, which has posed as the great defender of the Shia, would once again become vulnerable to internal revolt. The 10 Afghanistans that Assad promised would greet the arrival of a western intervention in Syria is an exaggeration, but the change happening in the Arab world, which has never in his history had nation states, is profound enough.
Nato is not, happily, contemplating another intervention. As we are all now witnessing in Libya, a no-fly zone does not protect civilian lives – estimates of the dead over the past eight months range from 10,000 to 50,000. Nor is its aim to force dictators to negotiate. As UN mandates have been interpreted by the leading military powers of Nato, no-fly zones are a cover for regime change. Assad knows he is next and he will play every card, especially the sectarian one, to delay what must surely now be the inevitable. The uprising is at a critical stage. Syria's two biggest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have stayed loyal to the regime, and Assad is for the moment confident he has weathered the worst. But the damage done by the savage repression elsewhere is irreversible. The economic sanctions have yet to bite. Not enough army officers and soldiers have defected to make a difference.
There may be no alternative to civil war, but if there is, it will not be through intervention. It can only be achieved when Assad sees that he is finished, and that his only hope of survival is to agree to a transitional government and free elections.
***
Comments in chronological order (Total 28 comments)
Raymond82
31 October 2011 9:32PM
If the regime fell, it would affect more than the resistance network of Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas's external leadership is already preparing its move from Damascus, after it incurred the wrath of its hosts by failing to condemn the uprising, and will probably move to Turkey, Jordan and Qatar. Hezbollah, which unequivocally supported the Syrian leadership, would lose a vital lifeline of military support from Iran.
Hezbollah might be weakened but a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and Syria would strengthen HAMAS
But beyond them, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran would all be shaken to the core if the majority Sunnis in Syria returned to the ascendancy. In Iraq there are already signs of the Sunnis demanding Kurdish-style autonomy from the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. If it lost Syria, Iran would lose the central plank of its regional power, and its regime, which has posed as the great defender of the Shia, would once again become vulnerable to internal revolt.
This may seem a dream for those wanting to control the mid east to see Iran fall but the Shia Crescent will just be replaced by a Saudi controlled mass from Tunisia to the borders of Iran. The Muslim Brother
DannySmith
31 October 2011 9:36PM
As we are all now witnessing in Libya, a no-fly zone does not protect civilian lives
No fly zones protect the lives of the side that is in the right and create freedom. That's the point. I find it sad you use the defeat of Gaddafi and his supporters as a reason why we should not do the same for Syria to free a people and create a much more stable region.
Lagrange1945
31 October 2011 9:46PM
Instead of concentrating on the external issue, it would be better to consider internal issue. Minorities syria have not joined the uprising. They fear a sunni rule would mean a return to persecution. Even worse, it could lead to ethinic cleansing in Syria. So far in tunisia, egypt and libya the islamic fundamentalsts are gaining strength, and the same thing will happen in Syria. Reiligious hatered exists in Syria but that has been overpowered by the nature of the dictatosrship, if Assad falls it will resurface.
SchadenfreudeHaHaHa
31 October 2011 9:55PM
Amazing how myopic a trained ophthalmologist can be.
SchadenfreudeHaHaHa
31 October 2011 9:55PM
Amazing how myopic a trained ophthalmologist can be.
As for:
his only hope of survival is to agree to a transitional government and free elections.
Assad is riding the tiger. As soon as he gets off he's as dead as Gaddafi.
No matter which dictator falls, there will not be liberal democracy in the (Arab) middle east for generations yet. We'll still be talking about the impending 'Arab Spring' come 2030.
Raymond82
31 October 2011 9:58PM
...............as a reason why we should not do the same for Syria to free a people and create a much more stable region.
Creating another Iraq will not make the region more stable
nstead of concentrating on the external issue, it would be better to consider internal issue. Minorities syria have not joined the uprising. They fear a sunni rule would mean a return to persecution. Even worse, it could lead to ethinic cleansing in Syria.
Look to Iraq to see what will happen in Syria. In Iraq many Christians have fled many to Syria post "liberation". Churches are now being bombed. Not yet in Syria but look at Egypt for what is coming up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/middleeast/fearing-change-syria-christians-back-bashar-al-assad.html?pagewanted=all
Harryplace
31 October 2011 10:12PM
Yeah,no oil no intervention. You can bet every penny you have that if Syria had loads of the black stuff under their land that the USA and their cronies would be in there bombing the crap out of them right now,on humanitarian grounds obviously. :)
DannySmith
31 October 2011 10:21PM
Creating another Iraq will not make the region more stable
Firstly there is no evidence the region is less stable because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Secondly, a no fly zone would not have foreign troops on the ground that could prolong the war after the regime has fallen.
The moral thing to do is to help Syrians in the same way we helped Libya. That's what they're increasingly calling on us to do.
AnthropoidApe
31 October 2011 10:21PM
Nato is not, happily, contemplating another intervention. As we are all now witnessing in Libya, a no-fly zone does not protect civilian lives -- estimates of the dead over the past eight months range from 10,000 to 50,000. Nor is its aim to force dictators to negotiate. As UN mandates have been interpreted by the leading military powers of Nato, no-fly zones are a cover for regime change.
Once again the Guardian demonstrates its unrivaled talent for critical servility, retrospectively denouncing the crimes of the Nato regimes with a fine impotent outrage after cravenly backing them during their actual commission.
When and if the Nato gangsters do attack Syria the Guardian will once again be right on side with their imperialist masters, bleating about "the dictator" and retailing the latest official lies along the lines of babies being thrown out of incubators and soldiers being issued Viagra to rape civilians.
DannySmith
31 October 2011 10:23PM
Yeah,no oil no intervention.
Pssst, oil companies were in Libya before the intervention. There was no oil in Kosovo either.
The main reason they're worried is because they're scared of what Iran might do, and the Syrian regime has close links to Russia and China who would block moves at the UN.
What should happen is an independent NATO no fly zone.
DannySmith
31 October 2011 10:26PM
Once again the Guardian demonstrates its unrivaled talent for critical servility, retrospectively denouncing the crimes of the Nato regimes with a fine impotent outrage after cravenly backing them during their actual commission.
Huh? Crimes? What are you on about. The dictatorship had already launched a war against the people. Nato simply made sure the victims won instead of the dictatorship who were sending the tanks in to put down the people. These deaths would have occurred anyway, perhaps many more as the war raged on for decades like in many African countries.
Lives were saved and a people were freed. Don't let anyone lie to you that this was not the case.
Raymond82
31 October 2011 10:34PM
Firstly there is no evidence the region is less stable because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Millions dead millions refugees and mass unemployment is not stability. A continous civil war is not stability. What you are meant to say by "stability" is what you reveal later- a more US orientated Saudi backed regime.
Secondly, a no fly zone would not have foreign troops on the ground that could prolong the war after the regime has fallen
Neither here or there. Damage is caused either way
The moral thing to do is to help Syrians in the same way we helped Libya. That's what they're increasingly calling on us to do.
Bharainis are asking for help how comes thats not coming? Saudis?
The main reason they're worried is because they're scared of what Iran might do, and the Syrian regime has close links to Russia and China who would block moves at the UN.
See thats the real reason not at any concern at protecting lives as it won't. Syria wouldn't be allied to Iran but being a Saudi Satellite is hardly better
Raymond82
31 October 2011 10:37PM
There was no oil in Kosovo either.
But now a site of a giant US base
bariloche
31 October 2011 10:38PM
Syria has oil reserves of 2,500,000,000 barrels.. #34 in the world...
Re Libya.. didn't we have a sweet BP-Blair oil deals going on pre intervention... could of simply let Gaddafi win to maintain our supply...
Syria and Assad will be a pariah for years.. change will happen though, unfortunately for the Syrians quite slowly..
Harryplace
31 October 2011 10:38PM
@Dannysmith
Pssst, oil companies were in Libya before the intervention. There was no oil in Kosovo either.
I think you will find that the oil industry was rapped up by the Libyan national oil company. They owned about 705 of the oil and even the foreign companies who won contracts after it was opened out a few years ago have to pay NCO a hefty chunk of every barrel and also pay for the development of the fields. Now you will find that the 70% will be sold off to mulit national oil companies and the Libyans will not be getting what they should out of their own oil. As for Kosovo,yes they had no oil but what they did have was strategic position. The Americans have one of the biggest army bases in the world there now, Camp Bondsteel.
ITS1789
31 October 2011 10:38PM
This is pretty sanctimonious stuff... even for a Guardian leader. What is it with these 'liberal' warmongers? What is it about war that turns them on so? We're talking about something that's similar to a great liberal crusade for 'freedom' that leads seemingly inevitably to collosal loss of life and massive destruction, and the promissed 'freedom' and progress towards Swiss-style democracy is just always out of reach... but honest, hand on heart, next time, next war, things will be so different.
So we topple another regime, and another nation falls to pieces, and who gains from this new and so successful doctrine? Well, it certainly isn't the ordinary people, who don't even really matter to us, how could they?
Democracy and freedom are the ideological smokescreen puffed out by our politicians and their tame media, which includes the Guardian, which is shameful. The smokescreen is designed to hide our true motives which are purely strategic and economic. With Syria destroyed as a unitary state it can be carved up by its neighbours, and then it's onwards to Iran and Pakistan, and then were to? Well, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians won't just sit there and wait patiently until it's their turn for dose of 'democracy' and 'freedom.'
And what is this 'democracy' and 'freedom' crusade based on, what's the model we desire to introduce? Why it's democracy for the 1% who own virtually everything of value in the UK and US and 'freedom' for the 1% to screw everybody else, in societies which are chronically unjust, where Power is in the hands of a tiny, fabulously wealthy elite, who fuck everybody over, and over, and over. And this corrupt, decadent and degenerate 'democracy' is our gift to the world and why we kill so many people and destroy their countries?
Harryplace
31 October 2011 10:42PM
@Dannysmith
Lives were saved and a people were freed
Evidence of all those lives saved? You have none,just making bold claims. According to some figures up to 50,000 people have died and many of them you can be sure were killed by NATO not Gaddafi duck.
onceagreatnation
31 October 2011 10:43PM
Of all the NUTS to crack Assad will be the hardest.
Clunie
31 October 2011 10:47PM
I have no desire to see any Western intervention in Syria and I'm pretty sure the protesters haven't asked for any, but I would very much like to see the UN approve what the protesters have repeatedly asked for - an observers' mission and human rights monitors (who needn't, in fact shouldn't be Western). If they were actually serious about stopping the bloodshed they would have done that long ago.
ITS1789
31 October 2011 10:49PM
Let's try to bury the bullshit argument that the western oil companies were already in Libya, so we didn't need to invade to secure acess to their oil.
The point is that both western governments and oil companies were irritated and frustrated over the Gadaffi regimes 'resource nationalism', which is western code for not allowing the international oil companies free and unrestricted access to Libya's oil. The Libyans knew that their vast oil reserves were only going to be more valuable as time passed, and their interests were to pump as little as possible for as long as possible and hold the price high. The West's interests are the opposite. We want to exploit Libya's oil reserves at a far higher rate because we are desparate for oil and obviously don't want to become too reliant on Russian supplies.
All the wars for 'freedom' we've been involved in over the last twenty odd years have, in some way, been about strategic and economic interests, and first and foremost oil and gas, and securing routes for pipelines.
The wars have nothing, nothing, to do with human rights, democracy and freedom, but everything about booty and glory.
edwardrice
31 October 2011 10:58PM
DannySmith
Lives were saved and a people were freed. Don't let anyone lie to you that this was not the case.
You don't know that unless you are claiming to be able to see into the future.
What we do know now is the rebels put into power by Nato have turned out to be just as bad as the Gaddafi regime if not worse.
Tawergha, a town of 30,000 has been ethically cleansed. It's people scattered and living in terror. Sirte, a town of 100,000 has been reduced to rubble. Reports of civilains killed by Nato's bombs. Rebels are arresting and torturing anyone they suspect of being a Gaddafi loyalist. The ''new militias are motivated by vengeance and rivalry in equal measure''. Apparently Islamists in Benghazi, have an Al Qaeda flag
above the court house. 20,000 anti-aircraft missiles have been looted and the country is awash with guns. Everyday their is more news of the rebels committing the sort of crimes that Gaddafi was accused of.
bariloche
31 October 2011 10:58PM
Agree to an extent.. but the Chinese were one of the main beneficiaries from Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
Harryplace
31 October 2011 11:10PM
bariloche
but the Chinese were one of the main beneficiaries from Iraq
Lukoil and many of the other international oil companies that won fields in the auction are now subcontracting mostly with the four largely American oil services companies that are global leaders in their field: Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger. Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all
We will not count the hundreds of billions that the Americans arms and security companies have made.
Arapas
1 November 2011 12:11AM
the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 40% of the people killed in the uprising came from Homs – are now calling on Nato to establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Week by week, the land is descending into civil war.
The answer is here, in yesterday's Guardian:
Rasmussen ruled out Nato military action in Syria. "Nato has no intention [to intervene] whatsoever. I can completely rule that out," he told reporters. "Having said that, I strongly condemn the crackdown on the civilian population in Syria.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/31/nato-ends-libya-rasmussen?INTCMP=SRCH
hkhoury
1 November 2011 12:15AM
I know Bashar personally. I know well what type of personality he is. Bashar was a “nice” person, however superficial and has no good understanding for real life. Consequently, Bashar could have had good wishes, when he started his presidency, but he has had no ability to achieve them. This failure is inherent in his character that lacks charisma and social intelligence. Thus, he has not been in control and he won’t be; he has had no courage, and he won’t have shortly. In brief, he is immature and has no personal assets that permit to him to have appropriate psychological growth. As you know, people when they can't progress personally, they regress (please refer to Karen Horney in “Neurosis and Human Growth”. In other words, they become worse, more dysfunctional and consequently more evil. This particularly applies to immature people in power, because during their reign they become extremely entitled, arrogant, narcissistic, ruthless and paranoid (please refer to Eric Fromm in “Anatomy of Human Destructiveness”). Bashar is no exception. He by now believes that he was born to be president; even, he is the best of them all. He is the savior of Syria and probably the whole Arabic World (as his father used to believe). Do not think that for them these are empty words, they simply try to bluff us with. Not at all, these are deep beliefs in their minds; they are called in psychology self-delusions (please refer to Cordelia Fine in "A Mind of its Own"). However, he knows inside himself that without presidency he is nothing; nobody will respect him; nobody will glorify him; nobody will adore him. Therefore, do not count on him to quit the presidency merely for the sake of the country.
http://haytham-khoury2.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-national-initiative-for.html
Canadianforever
1 November 2011 12:16AM
Syria is not Libya and one cannot draw any comparisons between them. The fact of the matter is that NATO is salivating to bring down Syria's secular government, and divide the country in order to ensure the demise of anything Pan-Arabist. The benefit is long term security for Israel, the total liquidation of the Palestinian question, the elimination of the only Russian strategic presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, the installation of an extremist Salafi government that cannot be at peace with Shi'it Iraq (but would be of much use to Saudia's Wahhabis), the demise of Hizballah and Hamas (both considered terror Organizations by the West and resistance movements by the rest of the world).
Further, it will create an imperialist co-opted Sunni continuum between Turkey (a NATO servile Islamic country and a wannabe European one) and the rest of the Arab world. In a nutshell, the geostrategic importance of Syria is so critical to Imperialism's total hegemony over the entire Middle East so much so, that the strategic objectives of encircling Russia, China and the rest of South Asia/Eurasia including the emerging economies of India, Malaysia and Indonesia may not be achieved without bringing Syria to its knees. A long shot which, if attempted may bring NATO's scourge to a dreadful and costly end.
Arapas
1 November 2011 12:21AM
@ edwardrice 31 October 2011 10:58PM
DannySmith
What we do know now is the rebels put into power by Nato have turned out to be just as bad as the Gaddafi regime if not worse.
Sad, is not it. As long as NATO does not try to bite off more than it can chew, it will be OK.
Arapas
1 November 2011 12:29AM
@ Canadianforever 1 November 2011 12:16AM
the strategic objectives of encircling Russia, China and the rest of South Asia/Eurasia including the emerging economies of India, Malaysia and Indonesia may not be achieved without bringing Syria to its knees. A long shot which, if attempted may bring NATO's scourge to a dreadful and costly end.
From the above I take it that You do not know what nearly happened in 1988.
There is such thing as pre-emptive strikes, You know.
Raymond82
1 November 2011 12:33AM
,
The benefit is long term security for Israel, the total liquidation of the Palestinian question, .............
.......the installation of an extremist Salafi government that cannot be at peace with Shi'it Iraq (but would be of much use to Saudia's Wahhabis), the demise of Hizballah and Hamas (both considered terror Organizations by the West and resistance movements by the rest of the world).
Hezbollah might demise but what about Hamas or an even more radical Islamist groups. Surely Salafists would not make peace with Israel surely? They would drive the remaining Christians out of Lebanon losing leverage there. The whole region will be reshaped which will bring short term gains in the breaking up of Iran's influence and civil war deflecting attention from Israel but in the long term how is being surrounded by Sunni Islamists ever going to bring peace or stability
Syria is not Libya and one cannot draw any comparisons between them. The fact of the matter is that NATO is salivating to bring down Syria's secular government, and divide the country in order to ensure the demise of anything Pan-Arabist.
Pan Arabist movements also promote state ownership of oil which is probably also a large motivation , maybe greatest motivation for their removal
__________
What do you think?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào, có ý kiến phê binh gì qua bài viết nhận định của Guadian "Syria: delaying the inevitable" và 28 Ý kiến phê bình từ "28 Comments" của đọc giả ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
01112011
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment