Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34161-blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution

But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative – favored by Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – is to achieve a ceasefire and then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people could choose their own leaders.

Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians – and if that’s true, he would presumably lose any fair election – the U.S. position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring “regime change” in Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington’s neoconservatives.

In other words, to fulfill the neocons’ dream of Syrian “regime change,” the Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in the United States.

For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference “terrorists” and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. “They want the Syrian government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don’t think anyone would accept in any country,” Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments and that he would only “deal with the real, patriotic national opposition.”

[merrily]

1. smh

[KG]

2. in the meantime, keeps dropping them bombs in the name of regime change, worked so well in iraq and

Libya

[Blue_Tires]

24. Russia is dropping a lot more bombs than we are, but please continue...

[Yorktown]

3. the neocons’ dream of Syrian “regime change,”???

I think it would be the dream of the people of Syria to see Bachar go.

He gassed his people, tortured them in his prisons.

If he stood for elections, it would mean his repressive goons would still be on the loose.

Free and fair elections with Bachar around? I think not..

[CJCRANE]

5. We've seen this movie before with Saddam and Gadaffi. It doesn't end well. It just unleashes

terrorism and chaos.

Count me out. Not in my name.

[Yorktown]

9. Different issues

- Invading Iraq was idiotic
- helping the people in Libya not get slaughtered was more justifiable

[CJCRANE]

10. The rebels in Benghazi were armed terrorists.

It was a sham.

Look at the state of the country now.

The whole regime change program is the PNAC agenda.

[Yorktown]

11. No. The rebels were the civil society

It is true the islamists try to channel those uprisings to their profit,

but they never are the mass of the 'Arab springs'.

[Scootaloo]

17. We didn't really help the Libyan people in that regard

'Cause apparently people would rather try to swim to Italy than live in Libya now. Seriously, you don't think the Libyans hopping in those boats don't know they're literal deathtraps? Think about that. They KNOW. And they'd rather have a 70% chance of dying of exposure in the middle of the Mediterranean, than a 100% chance of living in Libya for another ten fucking minutes.

Don't talk like we did Libya a favor. All we wanted out of Libya was to stick Uncle Sam's cock up Ghaddafi's ass and call it a day.

[AngryAmish]

12. "The people of Syria" do not exists.

Those people do not see themselves as citizens of countries. They are first part of families, clans, then tribes, then ethnicities, then religion.

This was the basic ignorence that caused first thinking invading Iraq was create a grateful Iraqi people. Nope. It also led the US to back the Arab Spring. How did that work out?

[Yorktown]

13. Not true in the case of Syria

The vast majority is Sunni, with no other allegiance (like the Kurds would)

So there is a common basis for the Syrian Sunnis to rule,
possibly uniting with the Sunni region of Iraq,
leaving the Alawite coast as (semi?) independent.

[Cayenne]

20. Many sunni do not want a salafist dictator

Many sunni would not trade their secular dictator for a salafist dictator. Assad's army is mostly sunni and is fighting effectively against all the salafists.

[Yorktown]

25. Bachar propped the Salafis among hiis opponents so there would be two bad choices

There are others.

[Scootaloo]

16. Oh lord. This garbage?

Sorry AngryAmish, you're falling for some ignorant prejudice that the US has towards other parts of the world.

You know how "Africa" is so often characterized as a single coutnry, represented by crippling poverty and flies crawling on the nose of ab arefoot kid? Yeah, I hope you know that's complete bullshit, right?

So too with the image of Arabs as these backwards tribal primitives who run around the desert, screaming about shit and being manifestly "unready" for even the concept of nation-states, much less democratic governments. it's been a handy prejudice, given our interaction with Arab states in the last eighty years.

Syrians have a very strong national identity. Probably the second-strongest among the Arab states, after Egypt - and for much the same reason, Syria has a national history that predates the written word. Yeah, a civil war engenders societal breakdown. But it's not "they don't see themselves as citizens of countries" it's that "holy shit we're getting killed who can I run to that won't kill me."

This was the basic ignorence that caused first thinking invading Iraq was create a grateful Iraqi people. Nope. It also led the US to back the Arab Spring. How did that work out?

No, the problem with Iraq wasn't the Iraqi people - goddamn, victim blame much? The problem with iraq was the fucking fact that we invaded Iraq.

[AngryAmish]

18. Being tribal does not mean primitive.

Most peoples now and throughout history are and were tribal. The West is the exception to this and we should not impute our mores upon diverse peoples. We are neither more advanced or better. We are the different ones.

Especially under father Assad the Baath Party worked very hard to be multiethnic. How does that look today? Old hatreds die hard and they have a lot of history to nurse grudges.

[Scootaloo]

21. But the statement is untrue, when used to describe Syrians

And that's where the negative connotations come from, that fact that it's just not true.

[Scootaloo]

15. You just said something really dumb

Free and fair elections with Bachar around? I think not..

How free and fair is an election of a foreign nation is controlling who is and is not on the ballot?

How free and fair is an election, when the military force of that foreign nation is parked just offshore and just on the other side of hte border and is controlling the airspace?

[joshcryer]

4. Anyone who would vote against Assad is either a refugee or dead.

So this is simply a way to legitimize more of Assad's brutality.

[eridani]

6. Not so. For better or worse, Assad is the only protector of religious minorities there

There is no real majority sect in Syria. Whether "moderate" of ISIS, most people taking up arms against Assad are Islamists.

[joshcryer]

8. I don't disagree.

I'm merely noting that any areas where there was massive fighting due to Assad's crackdowns had massive migrations of refugees who would not be able to vote.

[eridani]

26. Is this a job for Jimmy Carter? If anyone could figure out a way to do a fair vote--

--it would be our now cancer-free Jimmy.

[CJCRANE]

7. The hypocrisy is stunning. We are using islamist mercenaries funded by absolute islamic monarchies

to destroy a secular regime and bring in sharia law, all in the name of "democracy".

What a sham.

And the liberals who support this are sleepwalking to disaster.

Islamist radicalism will continue spreading until it overwhelms us.

[delrem]

14. USA has no right to deny any Syrian politician from the Syrian ballot.

Esp. when the USA is actively involved in military "regime change" operations in Syria, having concluded the same kind of operations in Libya and Iraq successfully but with an abominable outcome. I mean, WTF?

[pampango]

19. The dictators of the world owe him a debt for the "Assad gambit" for dictator longevity.

The Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Mubarak gambits were tried in 2011 and all the long-standing (even hereditary) dictators were deposed and/or dead by the end of 2011. Mr. Assad is neither. Dictators should take note of what works and what does not work.

And he seems to be adding a Step 7 to his previous 5 Step Plan. (Step 6 was added when when the US and others became directly involved in attacking one of his enemies (ISIS) then Russia became directly militarily involved in protecting his regime.) Step 7 is: If the international community (having come to your rescue) decides that elections might be a way to resolve the civil war, make sure your name is on the ballot. You can handle 'elections' just fine but not if the international community decides that your history of repression should keep you off the ballot.

1: When massive peaceful protests occur, repress them as them as violently as you can get away with - snipers, arrests, torture, etc.
2. This may work to quell the protests. If so, reward your military and security services and go back to being a dictator.
3. If #1 doesn't work right away and massive peaceful protests continue, keep up the repression. (You have to come up with a strategy to keep the international community at bay. A friend on the Security Council is useful for this.) Start talking about the presence of "criminal gangs" or "terrorists" among the protesters. There may not be any yet, but it's good to get the talking point out there for future use.
4. If your military and security forces continue to prove to be ineffective in suppressing dissent, don't worry. Keep up the armed repression. Eventually frustration will build up among factions of the protesters and some will become willing to resort to violence given the apparent futility of peaceful protest. Or outside groups will begin to take advantage of these frustrations.
5. At this point you can unleash your military and security forces to the full extent and hope you don't lose the civil war you have created.
6. If your military seems to be losing the civil war you have created, appeal to the international community to help you fight the terrorists - who weren't there in step #1 but are now. Use a hybrid of Louis XV's "Apres moi, le deluge" and W's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
7. If the international community decides that bringing an end to the slaughter and civil war involves your departure, protest that your rights are being violated. Some people may take you seriously.

I think this is a strategy that is workable in many repressive countries when populations get fed up with living with no rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=378947

[LittleBlue]

22. The sad truth is that democracies in the Middle East are too weak to oppose Islamists

The fanatics, even if they only have a small following, seem fanatical in their commitment. The armies of democracies like Iraq seem to stand no chance against them despite having far more men, firepower, money and training.

No matter who wins in this civil war, atrocities will be committed. The only question right now is the scale. Hopefully we can trade something in exchange for mercy when Assad does finally defeat the FSA and Isis. Mercy seems to have no meaning in this corner of the world.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Please post your daily Assad apologia somewhere else...

Thanks...

Because I grow tired of typing the same rebuttals to the same worthless talking points, please search some of my past posts on the topic...

[eridani]

27. People who think that knocking off dictators is a good idea should be ever so proud--

--of the shitholes that Iraq and Syria have become.