Russian Warships Head To Syria In Show Of Power

[pampango]

14. Assad is a royalist because he inherited the right to rule from his father. That's how royal famiies

operate.

Some Syrians are 'pissed' that an Alawite (15% of the population) rules by force a country that is 75% Sunni. (Those percentages are about the same as in apartheid South Africa when minority Whites ruled majority Blacks. Back then liberals thought that all people have a right to have a say in who governs them - regardless of their race, religion or gender - even if they might choose the 'wrong' people as a result.) Other Syrians are 'pissed' because they have no rights regardless of which group the repressive royal ruler happens to belong to. (Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans and others did not revolt because of which sect their dictator belonged to, but because of rights they did not have.)

A policy of promoting/protecting dictators and royal families in the hopes that they (and their successors) will be more progressive than leaders elected democratically is not a sound long term policy. The chances of obtaining and protecting rights in the long run for women, minority religions and gays is better under democratic governments (even flawed ones). Relying on a succession of royal rulers to promote and protect these rights is not a liberal alternative.

I agree that peaceful progressives (and non-repressive conservatives, if they existed) lose out as the civil war drags on. The longer revolutions take the more that the violent wings on both sides take command. The peaceful or moderate opposition and support get crushed in the process. Assad is smart enough to know that he benefits from the crushing of moderates and the emergence of the violent wing. Now he can say "You are with me or you are with the terrorists." He could not say that in the spring of 2011.

If the crisis had been resolved early on there would have been a better chance that peaceful protesters and moderate supporters could have worked out a nonviolent solution. (The "NCB, the progressive opposition force, the one that has never engaged in suicide bombings, beheadings, or driven Christians from their homes" was a major player in the early phase of the revolution. It is, as you say, much less so now.)

You may believe that in the spring of 2011 Assad was willing to negotiate a more open and democratic government with peaceful protesters even though that would have endangered his continued rule. I believe he rejected that option since he had a massive military and security system at his disposal that could repress the protesters (as they had in the past). If they failed at this (as they did - and as happened to the security services in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) and the situation devolved into a civil war, he had the professional soldiers, tanks and planes to win that as well.