Syria - the regime makes people suffer in rebel held areas

Ghayath Naisse 

 Some bits of this are good, explaining how the régime makes things unbearable in rebel held areas, so as to polarise society so that people think they would be worse off under rebel control. But as I read more, the sense I get is not that the military resistance to Assad's war on Syria should be supported, but that the military struggle is a terrible diversion from a non-violent class struggle that could solve problems in a jiffy.

 The reverse is the truth. The revolution armed itself, because that was the only way to resist when the demonstrators were shot at by their government at every demonstration. When the government moved on to the massacres and rapes, it was only by military resistance that Sunni communities could be protected from a sectarian bloodbath. That's actually a truth you can find in this piece, "That means that even in the rebel areas any political activity needs to be protected," but if you didn't already know that, you wouldn't get that from here. The image is presented of a revolution that is nearly extinguished, precisely because it is all about armed men. I think a Marxist analysis would start from the fundamental instability of a régime that constantly erodes its social base, and has lost permanently the consent of most Syrians, how the position of Assad as a client of Russian imperialism leads to a coincidence of interests that might be exploited to overthrow him, how victories on the battlefield open up political opportunities to deepen the revolution, and ensure that no Syrian need ever fear torture for speaking their mind again.