"Even Saddam had a larger base of support than the Syrian regime"
Harold's List
Response to Weekly Standard article “Assad State of Affairs”:
by: Oubai Shahbandar
A Choice for Syria
Lee Smith’s article provides some compelling anecdotal evidence of the ’pulse’ on the streets in Damascus but unfortunately falls into the same trap that many outside observers make when attempting to gauge the public mood of the Syrian citizenry. Smith also seems quick to jump on the ‘regime change entails civil war’ bandwagon that many detractors of Iraqi liberation wrongly attempt to bring into play when discussions of regime change in Syria come up.
Moreover Smith should not have attempted to speak to ordinary Syrians citizens with a Ba'athist minder apparently in tow which for obvious reasons brought into question the honesty of many of the statements he quotes in the article. A ‘journalist’ from government controlled television allowed to accompany a foreign writer is no mere journalist but likely a government agent. This explains the grandiose statements made by some of the people interviewed like “We’ll fight the Americans…. We’re all Syrians, and we’ll fight as Syrians.” The citizenry knew that Smith was accompanied by a Ba’athist minder and even if the ostensible journalist wasn’t a minder the fact that he was Alawi and likely spoke with an Alawi dialect would have lead (mistakenly or not) the individuals interviewed to believe that he was and thus accordingly temper and distort their public statements.
To his credit, Smith accurately points out the degree of nepotism and corruption of Assad II’s regime exceeds that even of his fathers:
“Right now Syria's ruling class--Bashar, his brother Maher, and brother-in-law Assef Shawkat--can fit on the head of a pin”
Thus shedding light on yet another source of national alienation facing a Syrian populace that was expecting some measure of progress upon the death of Assad I. Sadly for Syrians, all their hopes for change have been coldly snuffed out as their country slides even further down the scale of social, political, and economic development.
But instead of dealing constructively with the pressure of its own making, Assad II’s regime is seeking to write the rules by which they can exist with a campaign of bombings, assassinations, and militant rhetoric aimed at eliciting sectarian violence and social instability in the two budding democracies that share Syria’s borders.
Amongst his mixed analysis on the prospects of and viability of regime change in Syria Smith mentions that Assad II’s Ba’athist regime has “effectively booby-trapped Syria, and if it falls it is quite likely Syrians will shed each other's blood” adding, “Washington may hope there is some plausible alternative to the Assads, but none is in evidence”
First, there is no question that due to over three decades of Ba’athist repressive rule that a democratic transition will necessarily need to build upon the commitment and support of the Syrian Diaspora liberal opposition. The re-emergence of civil society can only be successfully completed with the leadership of the remnants of the underground Syrian opposition working hand in hand with the extensive network of Syrians living abroad-- most of whom are genuinely dedicated to rebuilding their homeland. It would be folly to fall into the straw-man argument put forth by many naysayers who argue that due to the existent civil and social circumstances, any degree of change from the stats quo would prove to be too great of a national shock for Syria to endure, thereby leading into a devastating spiral of violence and chaos.
The fact of the matter is that democratic transition from prolonged period of military rule in the middle east has a history of approximately three years. It is a question of leadership and courage to venture into the relatively unknown; Syria will never know democracy and a better future without visionary leadership to guide it to there. Lets face it, when it comes down to positing arguments for and against democratic transition in any authoritarian country you will always find more arguments on behalf the negative side of the proposition. Why ? Because for the most part, the dangers of countenancing an authoritarian status quo may not be readily apparent-- or at least become so after a hefty price (think 9-11) is paid in blood.
We cannot afford be anchored by a fear engineered by our foes; to do so would concede a kind of humiliating defeat to the lowest common denominator of one-man despotic rule. U.S actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have left no doubt in the eyes of all of humanity the role that this nation has taken upon itself in the defense of ideals bigger and beyond our mere national interests.
It is because of the very nature of this mission that make obsolete the mechanical realist Cold War argument of time past which would have included the toleration of regime's like Assad in its policy calculation.
The anti-anti-Ba'ath arguments that Smith mentions in his article fail to see that Assad II’s Ba’athist regime does not just endanger our greater mission of democratization and defeating Islamist terror by its actions of violence exportation -- the very nature of that regime’s essence shall forever make it a clog in the Middle East’s march to freedom. A Great Game here cannot be tolerated, there is simply too much at stake and the moment we enter into Assad II's bazaar of negotiation the U.S will find itself at his mercy.
As for the charges echoed by Smith’s article that democratic reform will lead to a “spilling of blood“, one must not forget that the blood of Syrians has been spilt over lesser things in the past; a blood drained down an ignoble hole that lead nowhere. It is time for the history that has been constructed upon the backs of the region’s inhabitants to come to an end. A new narrative desperately needs to be written in the annals of Mesopotamia and fretting over the possible obstacles and stumbles that a revolution will surely entail would hold prisoner a grand struggle for civilization to the cynical whims of its enemies.
Response to Weekly Standard article “Assad State of Affairs”:
by: Oubai Shahbandar
A Choice for Syria
Lee Smith’s article provides some compelling anecdotal evidence of the ’pulse’ on the streets in Damascus but unfortunately falls into the same trap that many outside observers make when attempting to gauge the public mood of the Syrian citizenry. Smith also seems quick to jump on the ‘regime change entails civil war’ bandwagon that many detractors of Iraqi liberation wrongly attempt to bring into play when discussions of regime change in Syria come up.
Moreover Smith should not have attempted to speak to ordinary Syrians citizens with a Ba'athist minder apparently in tow which for obvious reasons brought into question the honesty of many of the statements he quotes in the article. A ‘journalist’ from government controlled television allowed to accompany a foreign writer is no mere journalist but likely a government agent. This explains the grandiose statements made by some of the people interviewed like “We’ll fight the Americans…. We’re all Syrians, and we’ll fight as Syrians.” The citizenry knew that Smith was accompanied by a Ba’athist minder and even if the ostensible journalist wasn’t a minder the fact that he was Alawi and likely spoke with an Alawi dialect would have lead (mistakenly or not) the individuals interviewed to believe that he was and thus accordingly temper and distort their public statements.
To his credit, Smith accurately points out the degree of nepotism and corruption of Assad II’s regime exceeds that even of his fathers:
“Right now Syria's ruling class--Bashar, his brother Maher, and brother-in-law Assef Shawkat--can fit on the head of a pin”
Thus shedding light on yet another source of national alienation facing a Syrian populace that was expecting some measure of progress upon the death of Assad I. Sadly for Syrians, all their hopes for change have been coldly snuffed out as their country slides even further down the scale of social, political, and economic development.
But instead of dealing constructively with the pressure of its own making, Assad II’s regime is seeking to write the rules by which they can exist with a campaign of bombings, assassinations, and militant rhetoric aimed at eliciting sectarian violence and social instability in the two budding democracies that share Syria’s borders.
Amongst his mixed analysis on the prospects of and viability of regime change in Syria Smith mentions that Assad II’s Ba’athist regime has “effectively booby-trapped Syria, and if it falls it is quite likely Syrians will shed each other's blood” adding, “Washington may hope there is some plausible alternative to the Assads, but none is in evidence”
First, there is no question that due to over three decades of Ba’athist repressive rule that a democratic transition will necessarily need to build upon the commitment and support of the Syrian Diaspora liberal opposition. The re-emergence of civil society can only be successfully completed with the leadership of the remnants of the underground Syrian opposition working hand in hand with the extensive network of Syrians living abroad-- most of whom are genuinely dedicated to rebuilding their homeland. It would be folly to fall into the straw-man argument put forth by many naysayers who argue that due to the existent civil and social circumstances, any degree of change from the stats quo would prove to be too great of a national shock for Syria to endure, thereby leading into a devastating spiral of violence and chaos.
The fact of the matter is that democratic transition from prolonged period of military rule in the middle east has a history of approximately three years. It is a question of leadership and courage to venture into the relatively unknown; Syria will never know democracy and a better future without visionary leadership to guide it to there. Lets face it, when it comes down to positing arguments for and against democratic transition in any authoritarian country you will always find more arguments on behalf the negative side of the proposition. Why ? Because for the most part, the dangers of countenancing an authoritarian status quo may not be readily apparent-- or at least become so after a hefty price (think 9-11) is paid in blood.
We cannot afford be anchored by a fear engineered by our foes; to do so would concede a kind of humiliating defeat to the lowest common denominator of one-man despotic rule. U.S actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have left no doubt in the eyes of all of humanity the role that this nation has taken upon itself in the defense of ideals bigger and beyond our mere national interests.
It is because of the very nature of this mission that make obsolete the mechanical realist Cold War argument of time past which would have included the toleration of regime's like Assad in its policy calculation.
The anti-anti-Ba'ath arguments that Smith mentions in his article fail to see that Assad II’s Ba’athist regime does not just endanger our greater mission of democratization and defeating Islamist terror by its actions of violence exportation -- the very nature of that regime’s essence shall forever make it a clog in the Middle East’s march to freedom. A Great Game here cannot be tolerated, there is simply too much at stake and the moment we enter into Assad II's bazaar of negotiation the U.S will find itself at his mercy.
As for the charges echoed by Smith’s article that democratic reform will lead to a “spilling of blood“, one must not forget that the blood of Syrians has been spilt over lesser things in the past; a blood drained down an ignoble hole that lead nowhere. It is time for the history that has been constructed upon the backs of the region’s inhabitants to come to an end. A new narrative desperately needs to be written in the annals of Mesopotamia and fretting over the possible obstacles and stumbles that a revolution will surely entail would hold prisoner a grand struggle for civilization to the cynical whims of its enemies.
posted by Marko at 10/02/2005 10:42:00 PM
<< Home