Angry Arab interviews Thomas Pierret on Syria
Thomas Pierret is spot on.
'The kin-based/sectarian nature of the military is what allows the regime to be not merely "repressive", but to be able to wage a full-fledged war against its own population; in other words, this is a highly illegitimate regime in the eyes of most Syrians.
I cannot think of a more reactionary stance than supporting Asad's fascistic and homicidal regime. This is what really matters if we speak of "conservatism" and "reformism".
Conditions of women can only improve because they cannot be worse than under a regime that has displaced, shelled, killed, injured, raped, arrested, tortured, widowed, and orphaned millions of Syrian women.
The opposition is a very diverse reality that ranges from exiled proponents of non-violence to local civilian committees and councils on the ground, mainstream Islamists like the Muslim Brothers, mainstream armed groups like the "FSA" (whatever that means), and radical Salafi Jihadis. Many Syrians certainly dislike one or several of these components, but at least the "opposition" offers them a broad spectrum of political options. The regime does not.
The question is not whether or not the Syrian opposition should accept Saudi and Qatari support (Turkey does not provide any tangible aid, it merely facilitates), it is whether the Syrian opposition wants to keep on fighting, or surrender (I do not believe in a third way, i.e. peaceful revolution and/or negotiations; it cannot work with that regime). If the opposition wants to keep on fighting, it cannot survive without external logistical support, and none is willing to provide it except for Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
My only concern is the half-heartedness and inefficiency of these countries' military support. For various reasons, these states want to weaken Asad, but they are not eager to see him replaced, hence the limits of their support. The outdated Croatian weapons provided to the rebels over the last months are better than nothing, but these states could do much more. Arms deliveries they have paid for compare very poorly, for instance, with the top-notch weaponry provided to Hezbollah by Iran and Syria.'
'The kin-based/sectarian nature of the military is what allows the regime to be not merely "repressive", but to be able to wage a full-fledged war against its own population; in other words, this is a highly illegitimate regime in the eyes of most Syrians.
I cannot think of a more reactionary stance than supporting Asad's fascistic and homicidal regime. This is what really matters if we speak of "conservatism" and "reformism".
Conditions of women can only improve because they cannot be worse than under a regime that has displaced, shelled, killed, injured, raped, arrested, tortured, widowed, and orphaned millions of Syrian women.
The opposition is a very diverse reality that ranges from exiled proponents of non-violence to local civilian committees and councils on the ground, mainstream Islamists like the Muslim Brothers, mainstream armed groups like the "FSA" (whatever that means), and radical Salafi Jihadis. Many Syrians certainly dislike one or several of these components, but at least the "opposition" offers them a broad spectrum of political options. The regime does not.
The question is not whether or not the Syrian opposition should accept Saudi and Qatari support (Turkey does not provide any tangible aid, it merely facilitates), it is whether the Syrian opposition wants to keep on fighting, or surrender (I do not believe in a third way, i.e. peaceful revolution and/or negotiations; it cannot work with that regime). If the opposition wants to keep on fighting, it cannot survive without external logistical support, and none is willing to provide it except for Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
My only concern is the half-heartedness and inefficiency of these countries' military support. For various reasons, these states want to weaken Asad, but they are not eager to see him replaced, hence the limits of their support. The outdated Croatian weapons provided to the rebels over the last months are better than nothing, but these states could do much more. Arms deliveries they have paid for compare very poorly, for instance, with the top-notch weaponry provided to Hezbollah by Iran and Syria.'
No comments:
Post a Comment