President Assad greeting crowds in Damascus
Nicholas Noe on “the dangerous myth of the inevitable collapse” of the Syrian regime:
Washington and others will start to have to come to term with the poverty of the discourse which they almost immediately launched – that this regime will inevitablly (and some suggested effortlessly and/or with a manageable level of bloodshed) collapse.
I don’t usually see eye-to-eye with Noe, but he’s making a point here that we all should think about. The common wisdom and the undertone of most coverage of the events in Syria is that the regime is going to collapse sooner than later. How true is that?
There are many reasons why a sense of inevitability has spread:
- Crippling Economic and political sanctions on Syria that hit vital sectors of the economy. The argument is that the Syrian bourgeois will eventually abandon the regime because they start to feel the pinch.
- Constant media coverage of an unrest that seems to be growing by the day and an army that keeps shedding defectors.
- Social proof: Many world leaders are saying that the regime will fall, including some Lebanese leaders who seemed to have staked their entire political careers on it
But if we look closer, there are reasons why the believers in inevitability should pause and take stock:
- It might take years before the economic sanctions really start to bite
- The opposition in Syria is finding it difficult to convince key power brokers that they are united and are a viable alternative to the regime.
- Some previously combative regional leaders (Qatar and Turkey) have noticeably toned down their criticism of the regime
- The Arab league abandoned its brief stint as fire-breathing monster and returned to its cozy paper tiger roots
- Fatigue with media coverage of events in Syria: If the news is the same every day, people start losing interest
The thing about inevitability is that it is self fulfilling. A real sense of inevitability pushes people to leave a sinking ship and change sides. It allows soldiers to defect with confidence, political opponents to turn up their criticism and news reporters to be lax with their fact-checking. But any step back from inevitability is also dangerous, because it sends people scrambling back to the safety of cowardice.
Am I saying that the Syrian revolution will join the green revolution of Iran in the club of revolts that were crushed by ruthless regimes?
Not at all. Things might turn in any direction and Libya was a great example. At one point during the Libyan revolution, there was a pervading sense of foreboding and resignation among commentators that Gaddafi is winning. In less than a few days however, the entire picture was flipped on its head and Tripoli fell in one day. This could very well happen in Syria too.
Update: Make sure you read these two articles by Michael Young and Tony Badran on why things with Assad are so screwed up at this point.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
I agree with your comments about not assuming inevitability and about the rather waffling position of many of the states in the region. But the regime in Syria has not managed to put down the protests the way in which Iran did in 2009. If the regime manages to hold on to power, it may be more dependent on Iran than ever before with access to fewer resources. That narrows the groups who will have a stake in wanting the regime to continue.
Also, it seems to me that the regime has a solid base of support. no one seems to like to admit that, but judging by the syrian facebook community, it is pretty much 50-50, especially with the islamist undercurrent in the “revolution” that is scary to everyone who isn’t an islamist or indeed a muslimaniac. the opposition in syria is too eager to come to power, they should learn some patience.
Egypt was also another case where it was felt that Mubarak had too much of a grip on power to let go, but it happened anyway. Since Syria is pushing at the limits – and beyond – in its reliance on violence, the opposition will also up its reactions. The opposition is getting assistance from Libya in way of experienced fighters and weapons. What it will get down to is an army trained in conventional warfare vs a guerilla movement. And I wouldn’t count Turkey and Qatar out of the anti Syrian equation either. Maybe the argument about inevitability gets down to short term (a year or less) or a longer term (1-3 years).
With a major difference that in Libya there were bombs falling from the sky
No matter whether Bashar manages to stay in power or not the Syrian Ba’ath has already lost. Any potential resolution of the present conflict would not amount to more than a face saving development. The current regime/gang have promised and will have to introduce a new constitution, there will have to be popular presidential elections, president for life will be outlawed, multiple political parties will have to be accepted…. which means that the new system will be radically different than the present one.
It is warranted that you mention besides their names the following:
1)Michael Young is a right-wing nut who have been writing the same things since he returned to Lebanon from the States. He recently “celebrated” his 20-year stint in Lebanon (I wonder how he got his Lebanese citizenship, although only his mother is Lebanese and the law prevents a Lebanese mother from giving her child her citizenship. Oh yes, I remembered, he is a right-wing Zionist!). Yet, when he speaks in fragmented Arabic, he seems like another Mordakhai in form and content.
2) Tony Badran is nothing than a pitiful Zionist lackey who works in the Foundation for the defense of rabid Zionism and Zionists that is loved by the Wahhabi site Now Lebanon.
There’s something odd which struck me while watching the footage of the speech Assad gave at the Ummayed Square. The camera angles were low, other cameras were set at low, fixed positions, and there were no aerial shots or shots from the roofs of the surrounding buildings – as was the case in the previous “spontaneous” *cough!* gatherings of support.
Then I saw this in Al Jazeera and it all makes sense, phone footage from the other side of Ummayed Square.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0u0zJpP1ME&feature=youtu.be#t=1m15s
Also Jihad, I don’t know where you heard Michael Young speak Arabic but I heard him on Al Arabiya’s World of Books and the guy was fluent. Not only was he fluent but his Arabic was clear, concise, logical and unlike the Arabic spoken by his intellectual opponents it wasn’t riddled with non sequiturs, logical fallacies, obscure references, tired out cliches, over-emoting and the usual flowery guff which are sadly all too common in the discourse.
I wish more people spoke it like him.