The fall of the house of Assad

Robin Yassin-Kassab writes:

Selmiyyeh, selmiyyeh” — “peaceful, peaceful” — was one of the Tunisian revolution’s most contagious slogans. It was chanted in Egypt, where in some remarkable cases protesters defused state violence simply by telling policemen to calm down and not be scared. In both countries, largely nonviolent demonstrations and strikes succeeded in splitting the military high command from the ruling family and its cronies, and civil war was avoided. In both countries, state institutions proved themselves stronger than the regimes that had hijacked them. Although protesters unashamedly fought back (with rocks, not guns) when attacked, the success of their largely peaceful mass movements seemed an Arab vindication of Gandhian nonviolent resistance strategies. But then came the much more difficult uprisings in Bahrain, Libya, and Syria.

Even after at least 1,300 deaths and more than 10,000 detentions, according to human rights groups, “selmiyyeh” still resounds on Syrian streets. It’s obvious why protest organizers want to keep it that way. Controlling the big guns and fielding the best-trained fighters, the regime would emerge victorious from any pitched battle. Oppositional violence, moreover, would alienate those constituencies the uprising is working so hard to win over: the upper-middle class, religious minorities, the stability-firsters. It would push the uprising off the moral high ground and thereby relieve international pressure against the regime. It would also serve regime propaganda, which against all evidence portrays the unarmed protesters as highly organized groups of armed infiltrators and Salafi terrorists.

The regime is exaggerating the numbers, but soldiers are undoubtedly being killed. Firm evidence is lost in the fog, but there are reliable and consistent reports, backed by YouTube videos, of mutinous soldiers being shot by security forces. Defecting soldiers have reported mukhabarat lined up behind them as they fire on civilians, watching for any soldier’s disobedience. A tank battle and aerial bombardment were reported after a small-scale mutiny in the Homs region. Tensions within the military are expanding.

And a small minority of protesters does now seem to be taking up arms. Syrians — regime supporters and the apolitical as much as anyone else — have been furiously buying smuggled weapons since the crisis began. Last week for the first time, anti-regime activists reported that people in Rastan and Talbiseh were meeting tanks with rocket-propelled grenades. Some of the conflicting reports from Jisr al-Shaghour, the besieged town near the northwestern border with Turkey, describe a gun battle between townsmen and the army. And a mukhabarat man was lynched by a grieving crowd in Hama.

The turn toward violence is inadvisable but perhaps inevitable. When residential areas are subjected to military attack, when children are tortured to death, when young men are randomly rounded up and beaten, electrocuted, and humiliated, some Syrians will seek to defend themselves. Violence has its own momentum, and Syria appears to be slipping toward war.

Meanwhile, CBS News reports:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday called for increased U.S. action in Syria, and said “now is the time to let [Syrian president Bashar] Assad know that all options are the table” – including the possible use of military force.

Graham, in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” decried what he described as the Assad regime’s “wholesale slaughter” against the Syrian people, and urged the U.S. to take a similar approach in that nation as it has in Libya in seeking the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi.

It’s time, Graham contended, to “get the regional partners to tell the Assad he has to go. And put everything on the table – including military force.”

“If we don’t turn this dynamic around, the Red Cross can’t go into Syria,” he continued. “It’s wholesale slaughter. We’re about to get Qaddafi going. We need to turn our attention strongly to Syria with the regional cooperation like we have in Libya.”

Regional cooperation for a US intervention in Syria? He must be joking! There would be opposition from Turkey, Iraq, Iran and even Israel. Maybe Graham thinks his proposal would get Kurdish support.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 thoughts on “The fall of the house of Assad

  1. Yonatan

    I suspect Israel might like to have NATO troops in Syria – it would be much better for NATO troops to die as opposed to Israeli troops. NATO would end up taking explicit responsibility for ensuring the survival of Israel irrespective of the actions of Israel.

  2. Norman

    Considering that the U.S. Government has been bought & paid for by AIPAC , anything less from Senator Graham, would verge on blasphemous behavior. As for NATO, well, it’s telling that they at least don’t have aspirations for Empire building like the U.S.

Comments are closed.