Assad: Quitting not up for debate

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said he has no intention of quitting, and the issue is not up for discussion at next week's peace talks.

"If we wanted to surrender we would have surrendered from the start," Mr Assad told Russian MPs in Damascus, according to Interfax news agency.

>

Opposition groups have previously demanded the removal of Mr Assad as a condition of any discussions on a possible transitional government.

But the Syrian National Council, the main exiled opposition body, announced on Saturday that it would attend the talks.


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25799942

[bemildred]

1. He is winning, why should he quit?

Would we quit in his position? After all the damage done? Fuck no. He is going to kill every one of those salafists and jihadis he can lay his hands on.

[AngryAmish]

3. if he quits he dies.

That does focus the mind.

[bemildred]

4. We all die, I'm sure he knows that, and Idi Amin died in comfortable exile in Saudi Arabia.

Two years ago, I said Assad was toast. I thought he had a good chance of winding up like Ghaddaffi. I was wrong.

[AngryAmish]

9. Amin was before the world court.

And the saudis won't put him up. The motto of the rebels: Christians to Beurut, Alawites to the cemetary. He loses his entire tribe is dead, so exile is not looking so good.

[bemildred]

11. Please see post #6. nt

[karynnj]

5. The only leverage the rest of the world could have is if the UN would refer him to the ICC

Syria, like the US is not a member of the ICC - so that referral would be needed. I assume that Russia would block it - so it is not too likely. (Note that the UN DID link Assad to war crimes, but did not refer him to the ICI - http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/02/world/la-fg-wn-syria-bashar-assad-war-crimes-un-20131202 )

If that were the case, a deal that he would gain immunity if he stepped down would make sense if it were possible to find a means to end the bloodshed. Given that that leverage is unlikely, I think you are right - why should he conceded power?

This is a ridiculous proxy war that never should have been started - as it is not clear how to end it - with or without Assad in power. Although it would make no sense to say so before Geneva 2, I wonder if the US might agree to Assad staying in power, but not running in the election this year. It is pretty clear that there is no justification for the rebels (any faction of them) gaining power. (This could allow focusing on the jihadis )

Our foreign policy here - from Bush to Obama has been pathetic and it is now a mess. On the chemical weapons, Obama stepped back -- and it may be time to do so again - ignoring both the right and Saudi Arabia. While SA might have no problem with the rise of the jihadis in this area, we should. Why should we support policies in SA's interests when they hurt ours?

[bemildred]

6. Definitely international pressure can work, the chemical arms deal shows that.

Or maybe he knew that we are nuts enough to make war some more.

I suspect he can be got to leave, some concessions can be had, but a break in the current political order will not be agreed to without force, and Assad's constituency must be well protected, before he is likely to accept it. Half a loaf, and we're not going to get that if we stall.

And we do have common interests with other big players like China and Russia and Iran in stability, so we should exploit that. Edit: which incidentally Mr. Kerry has done quite well.

[karynnj]

7. It is interesting that Lavrov and Kerry were said to be working together

on this - as they did on the chemical arms deal. It is clear that that happened only because of the pressure Russia applied - and they applied it in response to the US threat.

It makes sense that the threat (or the current reality) of instability does argue for a deal. I hope they can get one.

I do realize that if this happens, the McCains of the world will scream bloody murder - just as they did over the chemical weapons deal. One virtue of Obama not having to run for reelection is that he can do the right thing on Syria and Iran - even if it hurts his numbers. (Clinton would have the luxury of staying as silent on this as on Iran.)

[bemildred]

8. I concur. nt

[bemildred]

18. And you allude to another interesting point: avoiding trouble gets you nothing in US politics.

It is used solely as a defense, nobody ever runs on that sort of thing. So the incentives all run towards risk and getting in trouble, until you do.

And they all fear the media and the money.

[Eugene]

2. Syria says Interfax Assad comments on not giving up power inaccurate

Source: Reuters

Syria says Interfax Assad comments on not giving up power inaccurate

MOSCOW Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:16am EST

(Reuters) - Syrian state media dismissed as "not accurate" a report by news agency Interfax that President Bashar al-Assad told visiting Russian parliamentarians he has no intention of giving up power and the issue is not up for discussion.

Assad was quoted as telling the visitors days ahead of an internationally sponsored peace conference on Syria that "if we wanted to give up, we would have done so at the very beginning. We are on guard for our country. This issue is not up for discussion."

Syrian state television said that the Assad quotes on Interfax "are not accurate". It also said Assad "did not conduct an interview with the agency", although Interfax had not said that it had.

The comments attributed to Assad underscore differences between participants ahead of the January 22 talks in Montreux, Switzerland, seen as the most serious global effort yet to end Syria's three-year conflict, during which Assad has enjoyed Russia's protection.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/19/us-syria-crisis-assad-idUSBREA0I05320140119

[grantcart]

13. Very interesting. Wonder why they would dispute what he said?

[bemildred]

19. He has to get re-elected, and I imagine he will have observers out the wazoo when he does.

So he will REALLY have to get re-elected. I think that is why.

[cosmicone]

10. Assad is the only hope we have

and he better stay put.

Otherwise it will be a huge clusterfuck like Egypt, Libya and Iraq.

[Jesus Malverde]

12. Secular, British educated, Western in outlook, Supporter of Palestinians...

He's the number one killer of jihadist at the moment. The Syrian army is on the front lines of the war on terror and are killing our enemies.

Time has exposed the opposition as more brutal, and un-civilized than the Assad regime.

If we were serious about ending the war on terror, we would be attacking the root of the problem, the Saudi Terrorists and their financiers.

[grantcart]

14. Wow. The Syrian regime was born in mass murder and survived by brutality

Assad's father consolidated by using the regular Syrian Army wipe out 20,000 residents of Hama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

For those that still see the bright side of the KGBtrained-Stalinist-loving-journalist murdering-gaybashing Putin, Assad remains as the last loyal puppet in the Middle East.

To say that Assad Jr. is a Secular, British educated, Western in outlook, Supporter of Palestinians.. is like saying that Dexter Morgan is a respected member of law enforcement.

For a more informed piece on Assad go here:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115993/bashar-al-assad-profile-syrias-mass-murderer

For those that cannot connect the dots: Jihadists are Assads' best friend. They have focused their military on the Syrian National Council, a broad opposition group that wants to bring a government with human rights and is populated by respected Syrians from all ethnic groups. Assad continues to apply his main military assets against the Free Syrian Army and allow groups like the Al-Nusra Front to grow because it allows the murderous Syrian regime to appeal to the weak minded as defenders against terrorists.

The Assad family is the original terrorist group in Syria and use modern jihadists to give them a nobility they have never really aspired too.

[Jesus Malverde]

15. Hyperbole does not change the facts on the ground...

Supporting outcomes that would enslave women and take another secular state and turn it into a religious basket case like Libya makes little sense. Clearly this is not in the best interest of the United States.

For lack of a better word there exists a "failed state caucus". Successful Arab states are seen as a threat. They must be undermined with religious cancer or sectarian war.

Successes to this caucus are Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, and Syria. All states in such turmoil, they cannot protect their own territorial integrity, much less unify and project arab nationalism.

Members of this caucus are extreme right wing lunatics like mccain. They act neither in the interest of the United States nor Human Rights.

They act as diplomatic arsonists, pouring religious fuel and arms on sectarian tinderboxes.

It sounds like you're championing the failed state caucus....


McCain with terrorists

A strategy of engagement in the Arab world is what we need. We need to cultivate secular, western oriented, minority rights protecting majorities that will engage in modern civilization, not retreat from it.

[grantcart]

22. I am not surprised that you avoid the facts of the murderous history of the Assad regime.

But just because his daddy could suppress the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people doesn't mean that he inherited that right.

Your bigotry of Muslims is as well developed as your understanding of history is lacking.

Every democratic movement is a history of 'failed states'.

We had the Articles of Confederation, and after 100 years of Constitutional Federation had a massive civil war costing almost a million lives. The French had the National Constituency, Legislative Assembly, Counter Revolution, and the Reign of Terror.

Your pretzel configurations to avoid the basic facts hide one fact. There is universal condemnation of the Assad's Regime hold on power rather than accede to democratic elections and institutions. All Western governments, virtually all governments in the region, all human rights organizations, are on one side and Assad and Putin stand alone on the other.

I have limited time at DU and less patience and have decided not to waste my people who give support to murderous dictators and sustain bigotry at the level you do so I will leave you with the last word and congratulate you on becoming only the 5th person to achieve a spot on my ignore list.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. Ah, Hama, George Will's favorite touchstone for discussions of Syria.

Assad Sr. put down an armed insurrection that killed a thousand government troops. He did it brutally, yes, and destroyed the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to this day.

Interesting conspiracy theory you have about Assad and the jihadists. You make it sound as if they are in cahoots, when you know full well they would string him up faster than you can rip the heart out of a Syrian soldier and take a bite out of it. Not to mention the rest of the Alawite, Druse, and Christian communities. Which is not to say that the Syrian government is not doing everything in its power to strengthen divisions among the rebels. Although at this point, it seems like all they have to do is sit back and watch the revolution devour itself.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. Ka boom!

you know full well they would string him up faster than you can rip the heart out of a Syrian soldier and take a bite out of it.

[grantcart]

20. I don't follow George Will.

When I was in the UN I did talk with an ICRC delegate who just visited Hama after the Army left and described how the MB Militia had largely left but that the Syrians had continued to bombard the area even though they knew that they were largely only civilians left.

Amnesty International and other human rights groups support the fundamental estimates of more than 10,000 civilian casualties.

I remember reading a column by George Will when I was in Bangkok that he had changed his mind about air bags when he witnessed a woman get decapitated while he was sitting in his living room. I figured that life was too complicated to have every possible exigency occur within viewing distance of his living room, that the rest of us could make determinations based on established scientific fact and never bothered to read another column. Now the fact that he changed his opinion of air bags doesn't make them wrong.

[bemildred]

21. It is a brutal regime, always has been. Like Saddam Hussein.

An autocratic ruler over a divided society. But modernizing, or trying. And the reason you keep him (for now) is the same reason Iraq now would be better off with Saddam.

Anyway, that is the argument, and I have reluctantly come to support it. The liver-eaters really botched things up.

And you are quite right about Will. Never could get through a whole column. Empty wind.

[grantcart]

23. It is not for us to keep or get rid of it. The Assad regime only survives because of the outside

support it has received from Russia and the constant military action it has taken against civilians.

The Syrian National Council represents the true aspirations for the Syrian people and supports democratic rule and upholding human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Council

Internationally the SNC is recognized as the representative of the Syrian people, including official recognition by EU.

They have supported UN action, support of human rights and peaceful demonstrations. It was only after they sustained tens of thousands of innocent victims did they establish the Free Syrian Army which has continued to survive on minimum support against Assad's use of heavy weapons and unlimited support from Putin who cannot bear to see the Soviet Union's last ally in the ME walk away.

[bemildred]

24. Right. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. That's a highly propagandized account of the beginning of the revolt.

And the SNC is at this point a bad joke, although I'm sure they're racking up the Hilton rewards points in Istanbul. Who is paying their hotel bills, anyway?