An opinion on why Assad should not lose the war.

Submitted by Alexandros (United Kingdom), Sep 4, 2013 at 05:34

The last few weeks the Western governments and i include Israel in "West" seem very eager to bomb Assad and overthrow him. The excuse seemed to be the use of Chemicals against civilians, but the reasons are apparently different. But let's try to move step by step.

The US government had set as a red line in Syria the use of Chemical weapons, Russia as well had supported that such use is unacceptable. The Syrian Army was clearly winning the war in Syria, gaining ground every day and taking control of cities, even in regions that were fully controlled by the anti-regime powers. The question is why would Assad risk by any means to provoke the West and at the same time disappointing Moscow by using Chemical Weapons? An easy answer would be that Assad is a crazy dictator, but the truth is that if we do a background check on Assad is difficult to assume that he is crazy or that he even lusts for power. Actually it is more than clear that if someone had interests on using chemical weapons, this is the anti-regime powers, who were in the corner and are desperate for some outside help.

But Why is the West so eager to help those anti-regime powers who are they? It is made more than clear that these powers are in their vast majority extremist Islamists, who are members of terroristic organisations.

Even from a more general and wider geostrategic point of view, that some argue, i really do not think that bombing Assad or overthrowing him, is a solution. The arguments are that Syria is he strategic depth of Iran and the connection between Hezbolah and the Iranian regime, but are they the worst guys, they definitely are bad, but are they the worst? Should they be totally eliminated? Especially the Syrian regime is the most moderate regime in the middle east by far! What is the gain if Syria instead of a moderate regime, being the strategic depth of Iran has an extremist regime, which will be the strategic depth of Turkey, instead of Iran? A Turkey which is potentially far more dangerous since they have an apparent nuclear programme working it vice versa, first acquiring the ballistic capability and then the nuclear weapons? And what else will Turkey ask for supporting the American forces in the region? These are some thoughts an d questions that should be taken under serious consideration especially from the countries in the region.

As for terrorism in the Western countries, it is also clear that the terroristic organisations are not Iranian and definitely not Syrian, but controlled by Saudi Arabia and Turkey which work through "companies" like Al Qaida and Al Nusra!

Is it possible that instead of substituting a big evil with a smaller one, we are trying to do the opposite and we have not yet realised it? Are we sure that we control these powers or actually the genocide of the Christian populations shows otherwise?

Is it just a matter of image, since the West has taken a clear position against Assad's regime from the beginning? Is it that Assad can not stay since we do not support him? Is it that we are scared that this might look like a defeat? But then, what do we have diplomacy for?

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".