Mr. Assad needs to go: this should be bottomline

Submitted by Amit Srivastava (India), Apr 18, 2013 at 05:27

If one looks at Syria from a dynamic perspective in middle-to-long term, the fundamentalism is going to increase. It does not matter much whether Mr. Assad is ousted today or a year or two later. The fact is that in order for Mr. Assad to continue he needs to change his tactics which may question his long-held 'secular' (read pro-minority) credentials.

Mr. Assad if he offers truce or moderates his contest of the Free Syrian Army is more likely to loose his job and may have to give-in to an interim government. But suppose he continues as the President of Syria, he may have to accept many things that the Syrian opposition says. Obviously, he cannot continue if the West approved by the US arms the rebels. In this way the US may loose leverage with both the Alawites and Sunnis. The rate of 'chemical equations'; the theory that the present Obama administration is trying to apply, may be ill-conceived or wrongly written.

Suppose Mr. Assad fights without offering truce then obviously fastidiousness is going to increase both ways. That temperature and passion would increase is under-stated assertion. The point is very simple that by delaying arming the rebels the US may delay the chances of hardliners taking over the moderates but for what purpose? The fact is that Syria, except for this transition period, would always remain the Sunni-dominated state if it remains united. The argument of West-imposed secular states in the Middle East and the North Africa has become obsolete.

If Obama administration wants to write analytical equations in political matters, it should write the right equations. But the effort is praiseworthy. Only thing is that politicians and their staffs should understand the equations themselves and should not leave them to academicians. The right equations would show that it is foolish to ignore the demands of majority, no matter how hawkish they may be. People should be looked into within their local contexts. The fact is that in middle-to-long term the majorities' rules will prevail in the Islamic world. Shariah would be the law for many of the Islamic nations. If the US tries to help the rebels it can be a party to the negotiations and could earn some concessions from Sunnis for minorities; Alawites, Shias, Druzs and Christians. Else it would loose many-sides.

The best solution for Syrian crisis is to look for a peaceful negotiated solution whereby Mr. Assad and his family members are pardoned and they leave Syria. Interim government hugely dominated by Sunnis is installed and the new Islamic Constitution is written. But if Mr. Assad rejects the offer of pardon combined with exile then there is no option except to oust him by force. The best option for the US is still to arm the rebels should Mr. Assad rejects leaving the office peacefully.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".