http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/reelected-bashar-alassad-may-yet-have-the-last-laugh-on-syria/story-fnb64oi6-1229692715799

‘Re-elected’ Bashar al-Assad may yet have the last laugh on Syria

BASHAR al-assad was sworn in for another seven years as President of the Imaginary Republic of Syria on Wednesday night.

All around him the country is splintering, dying and on the run, and yet the Syrian leader, already in power for 14 years, was able to declare in his inaugural speech: “The Syrian people can give ­lessons in democracy.”

The British-trained eye-doctor is eyeless in Damascus. As he spoke, government troops killed and wounded reporters from the Turkish Anadolu Agency who were covering the use of barrel bombs against rebels and civilians.

Barrel bombs rolled out of helicopters into crowded markets and shells of nerve gas fired into city suburbs: these have become the distinguishing marks of the Assad regime. So far, close to 160,000 of his citizens have been killed.

Assad’s continuing swagger is down to two factors. First, the West, once committed to his overthrow, has come to accept that the President is not going anywhere.

Worse, he may even have to be part of a broad effort to defeat the Islamic State, the black-suited zealots who are laying claim to be the new global terror brand.

Second, nobody has come up with an opposition candidate strong enough to head off the violent collapse of the country.

The Assad family controls the security machine, the most ­effective parts of the army; its main arms supplier, Russia, is still keeping stocks high.

Iran sends a daily flight to ­Damascus, full of advisers, cash and medication for the elite.

Behind the walls of his Damascus palace, then, the President and his London-educated wife, Asma, have rarely felt so secure in the 40 months of this bloody insurgency. If nothing else, he can guarantee the security of his ruling Alawites.

He has reinforced his control over a strategic corridor running north from Damascus, he has taken back cities, including Homs, and his government forces are squeezing Aleppo.

“We might have to eat some hard crow,” says Ryan Crocker, a former US ambassador to Syria and Iraq. “As bad as the regime is, there is something worse: that is, the extreme elements of the ­opposition.”

And yet the country is collapsing beneath him. The economy has contracted 80 per cent.

There are no funds for reconstruction, no hope of significant foreign investment. President Assad’s election last month was won by 88.7 per cent of the vote — but voting did not take place in areas caught up in ­fighting.

The most trenchant measure of his failure is the huge humanitarian crisis that he has helped to create. Almost 11 million Syrians — half of the national population — are either living in refugee camps outside the country or have been displaced within Syria.

Many are in rebel-held areas and have been denied international aid. For them, Assad’s next seven years in office must seem like a biblical seven-year plague of pestilence and famine.

Britain and the US have unwittingly contributed to Mr Assad’s political longevity.

By blocking the supply of arms to moderate Syrian rebels, the West opened up an opportunity for the rapid expansion of the well-armed and well-trained Islamic State and al-Nusra Front forces.

The Free Syrian Army has been fighting on two fronts: against Islamic State and Assad troops.

Now Assad, encouraged by Iran, may turn on Islamic State.

Whatever happens will be part of a game cooked up in his palace with his Iranian and Russian advisers; its only real aim will be to prolong his dynastic rule.

His father, Hafez, died after three decades of iron-fisted rule. Bashar, still only 48, may be out to match that term.

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

You must have lost you thesaurus Gandalf. Can you explain what a useful intervention would be without using the word intervention?

Let's start again, from the beginning.

So what would be a 'useful intervention'?

Try to avoid limiting you description of it to "intervention".

oh I think I'm starting to get it...

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2014 at 7:20pm:


It seems FD doesn't understand that Saudi Arabia and her little bitch Qatar are intimately involved in the Syrian conflict, through their exporting terrorists into Syria. And therefore sanctions against this activity directly affects the Syrian conflict.

Therefore, allow me to re-articulate my intervention statement:

A useful intervention in Syria would be to sanction the Gulf kingdoms who are exporting terrorists to Syria

I would oppose Australia sourcing, funding and exporting terrorists - yes.

See what I mean Setanta?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:


Sometimes a question is just a question.