It's the secular, authoritarian, minority regime vs. first Sunni protesters, then Sunni rebels.
If one substitutes "Black" for "Sunni", the same could be said for South Africa in the 1980's - although the apartheid government caved before the "protesters" turned into "rebels". Thankfully, South Africa never had to deal with full-scale civil war.
I recall seeing at the very beginning of this conflict polling that showed about 30% supported the status quo, about 30% wanted to overthrow Assad by any means necessary, and about 40% wanted political change, but not at the price of civil war.
I remember the poll you are referring to.
With 70% (30% at all costs and 40% if it could be done peacefully) wanting political change in 2011, any elections would have been a big risk for Mr. Assad. But with 70% (30% supporting the status quo and 40% willing to accept it to avoid a civil war) Mr. Assad was smart (in terms of preserving his rule) to avoid elections and make it instead a choice between him and civil war.
When you look at the other options, the regime may not look so bad, no matter how murderous it is.
Agreed. The regime may have looked pretty bad to 70% or so of its people in 2011 but it certainly looks like "the lesser of two evils now".
I am tempted now to admit that Assad has handled the opposition to his rule more effectively than Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Mubarak did. By pushing his country into civil war, something the others could not or would not do, he has won. For the sake of the Syrian people, others should admit as much, support him as the best alternative to ISIS, bring the civil war to a close, allow him to remain as dictator indefinitely and hope the next generation of Syrians can do better.
= new reply since forum marked as read
