Since the attack by the US on a Syrian airbase we are hearing that Assad must go…..not something new but it has gotten a bit louder after his unwise alleged use of chemical weapons.
Hell “Assad must go” has been a slogan for 25+ years and yet he is still there and still in charge
While I agree that he must go…..but how do people see this occurring?
It has been a rallying cry for decades….first his father and now the son….words do not get it done. How would the world accomplish this feat?
Invasion? Now there is a great idea (sarcasm) yet another country that we invade as part of our humanitarian nation building….and it has worked so well in Iraq….why not try it again? (Again sarcasm)
I know….I know…..how about a negotiated settlement of hostilities. Hahahaha!
Now that the laughter has subsided….let’s look at negotiations…
Negotiations work well in most situations….labor strikes, boycotts, things along those lines….but when we deal with situations that involve religious freedoms, human freedoms or the future of an entire society a mutual agreement is not in the cards. And especially when there are multiple players all wanting something different. These will only provide a shift in the power base not a peaceful transition.
Syria? Who are the major players for the vacuum of power?
Some say that there are 1000 oppositions groups in Syria with about 100,000 fighters….but there are major groups fighting for control….and BBC has been kind enough to make the list a bit easier……
As one can see there are more rebel groups than hairs on one’s head and all want the same thing….POWER!
With further US backing the rebels will win but only to fall into Anarchy as the many political factions find themselves no longer united against a common enemy. A revolutionary government will probable exist for a short time during which the new government will try to root out all opposition under the cover of “seeking out those still loyal to the old government. But this Government will also fall to a Islamic fundamentalist government due to presser from the surrounding nations and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda who will use the social and political turmoil of the short lived Revolutionary Government to set up a strong foot holed in Syria.
The chant of “regime change” grows louder….but is it truly the best idea?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians in Idlib, Syria, was an abhorrent gesture of disregard for human life, and the perpetrators deserve to be brought to justice. However, the attack—repugnant as it was—has not in any way changed the strategic calculus on the ground in Syria. Ramping up intervention in Syria beyond Thursday night’s cruise missile strikes remains a terrible idea, as further action will be very costly, could saddle the United States with the futile task of rebuilding another ravaged Middle Eastern country, and will leave the people of Syria worse off.
As I pointed out during the recent “Arab Spring”…..there will be little progress toward democracy in the countries that are suffering with the protests.
Even the Trump cronies cannot agree on Syria……and what is next…….
President Trump’s decision to bomb Syria this week “was really one of the president’s finest hours,” says US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, speaking with CNN‘s State of the Union. “He wanted to know exactly what the facts and evidence was. He wanted to know what the options were, what the risks were, and the political strategy and solution side of it. After all of that he made a very, you know, strong decision,” she adds, per the Hill. Saying that “if he needs to do more, he’ll do more,” Haley indicated that regime change was on the table. “If you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with (Bashar al-Assad). Regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria.” Elsewhere on the Sunday dial:
- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wants to first reduce the ISIS threat, then “I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria.”
- National Security Adviser HR McMaster had tough words for Russia’s complicity, per the Hill: “Russia should ask themselves, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available?'”
- Tillerson also weighed in on what he sees as China’s understanding of the growing threat in North Korea, per Politico: “I think there’s a shared view and no disagreement as to how dangerous the situation has become. And I think even China is beginning to recognize that this presents a threat to even to China’s interests as well.”
Easy answer is that there is little to no experienced politicians with democratic chops. Without that experience the country will revert back to an authoritarian process.
So far I have been correct.
But back to the topic.
“Assad must go”! Good one! But who will replace him at the top of the power pyramid?
The one that sticks out in my mind is the Free Syrian Army leader, Gen. Salim Idris……his rhetoric is what the world wants to hear but I doubt if it is accurate.
He is a military man and they only know one way to control.
If Washington has an idea of how to replace Assad then please enlighten us.
Syria is the perfect example of how slogans and one liners will not solve the problem….makes good sound bites but that is all it is…..hot air.