Yeah... regime is doomed.  Syria is held together by the military, so once the military loses faith in the leader, the government really has nothing to sustain its power, perhaps aside from paramilitary operations, such as Hezbollah, which the government has supported in Lebanon.  That being said, Syria's government obviously is going to go the way of Qadaffi.

What follows it?  No way in hell you can answer that question.  Personally, I lean toward the optimistic side, with the warning that Syria has held a strong religious fundamentalist faction due to the government's been supporting them.

That being said, I want to remind everyone that where Syria goes, Lebanon could easily follow.  Lebanon's government is controlled by Hezbollah, which is primarily financed by Syria and Iran.  With Iran's economy faltering from increasing international sanctions and Syria falling to political pressure domestically, the organization controlling Lebanon will increasingly falter, allowing the Lebanese people to retake their government in time, possibly after foreign "support" (I put that in parentheses because the most likely scenario for something like this would probably be Israel looking for a reason to topple Hezbollah in Lebanon like they tried to do in 2005).

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> "Syria is held together by the military, so once the military loses faith in the leader, the government really has nothing to sustain its power"

Something my International Politics lecturer once told me "leaders, such as Ghadaffi, protect the military, whilst the military equally protect the leader. You remove one, the other loses alot of its power" (This comment was based on a question I asked in regards to responsibilities of punishments handed down in the ICC. Do you send him back to his country only so he can be released by the military? Does another country have to foot the bill to imprison him? etc). Now to get to my point (sorry for the roundabout way I took), but like in Libya, I see the military shifting sides as a means to actually maintain their already existing power. I do not expect much to change in Libya due to the "high ranking" military officers that shifted sides when power shifted, and I still expect very little change now. The same goes with any military dictatorship, so if the military in Syria do transparently shift sides to oppose the government, I think the impact would be minimal on Hezbollah due to the military still retaining their power.

Egypt would prove you wrong empirically, where the military turned out to be the final organization determining who retains power... yet the military openly allowed a conversion from a totalitarian government where the President worked with the military into a democracy, possibly run by an organization the military has been fighting for years.

More often, the military is relatively apolitical.  Yes, they have concerns related to foreign policy and military maintenance.  However, the military concerns don't encompass the entire affairs of the state... it's relatively rare to see a military have a stance on, for example, abortion, which they feel is important enough to use political capital, unless the issue is somehow related to military readiness.

Aside from this, the relationship you describe may be the exact reason a real transition would occur.  The military keeps the political side in power because the political side is useful to the military at keeping relative stability domestically, as per your argument.  Domestic protests prove to the military that the political side is a liability to the military agenda.  As a result, it's in the interests of the military to determine what type of political side will best promote domestic stability, and shift its support toward the political agent which will be useful to the military.

"More often, the military is relatively apolitical.  Yes, they have concerns related to foreign policy and military maintenance."

And the safety of their own position. My only comments about the political agenda of the military is to preserve their own power and position. I did also suggest that the support of Hezbollah is of military interest...

"Egypt would prove you wrong empirically, where the military turned out to be the final organization determining who retains power..."

So the military is in a position to determine who retains power? How is this not related to my first point above? I understand your point, and I do agree that not all military organisations are interested in persuing power, but in a place where the military protects a totalitarian government in return for the militaries own protection, I think you should be weary of lasting change when the military begins to change sides (simply because they will be protecting their own interests).

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> "Egypt would prove you wrong empirically, where the military turned out to be the final organization determining who retains power..."

So the military is in a position to determine who retains power? How is this not related to my first point above?

Because the point I was attempting to dispute was...

"Now to get to my point (sorry for the roundabout way I took), but like in Libya, I see the military shifting sides as a means to actually maintain their already existing power. I do not expect much to change in Libya due to the "high ranking" military officers that shifted sides when power shifted, and I still expect very little change now. The same goes with any military dictatorship, so if the military in Syria do transparently shift sides to oppose the government, I think the impact would be minimal on Hezbollah due to the military still retaining their power."

Specifically, the "there will be very little change now" portion is what I would indict.  From there, it depends on your definition of "change."  Egypt transformed from a lifetime dictatorship with sham elections once in a while to what could become a real democracy, with the democratic agenda backed by the military that was previously backing the dictator.  In terms of government operations... that is change!

> I understand your point, and I do agree that not all military organisations are interested in persuing power, but in a place where the military protects a totalitarian government in return for the militaries own protection, I think you should be weary of lasting change when the military begins to change sides (simply because they will be protecting their own interests).

I'd be wary, except that, historically, democracies are extremely useful for the specific goals apolitical militaries have in mind.
A: The need for the military to police the civilian population is much easier, allowing the military to focus its resources on... the military goals.
B: The political wing  creates a forum for people to correct such issues as economic or social problems, issues which are relatively divorced from military goals, but which can critically threaten military goals if the political side cannot manage the issues correctly.
C: Internationally, democracies just get less military pressure than dictators, in part because nations like the US believe democratic rulers are more accountable to international reprisal than dictators.

Remember, the military will only protect the political as long as the political is useful to the military in protection.  The protests prove that the political side is unable to provide the necessary protection to the military for the military to retain its alliance with the political... and considering many of these are pro-democratic movements, Syria included, the type of political organization which would protect the military in these specific circumstances would be a democratic political wing.

> Firewing wrote:

> Syria will survive with Assad as ruler, because:

A) Israel has no interest in a neighbor whit a government run by a democratic-islamic parties. So Israel has (weapons and munitions deliveries) and will support the Assad regime.

Israel has much less of an interest in neighbors with governments run by totalitarian Islamic parties, especially ones which Israel has actually engaged in military conflict against 5 years beforehand.  The Assad government is literally on the top of Israel's shit list.  You're saying a democratic government would be worse?  Why?

> B) Russia will protect the Assad regime, because they buy lots of russian weapons (Russian warships in syrian port, rocket sold recently to Syria)

How much weight does Russia have in actually influencing Syrian politics?  Yes, they're a nice seller.  But are you saying Russia would, for example, send military aid to suppress uprisings... something which, if true, would have happened months ago, and which would easily inflame Russia's stance internationally... not to mention the fact that Russian military support would undermine the Russian arms trade by giving free weapons when the Russians were previously making money from the weapons deals.

> C) China won't react aggressive against Assad, because Lybia was too much a success for the western coalition and a major defeat for chinese interests in the region.

Agreed.  That being said, "China won't do squat" and "China will oppose intervention" are two completely different things.  Chinese policy generally tends to favor non-intervention, so it's much more likely they'll make some overtures about international intervention and violations of domestic sovereignty, but won't invest in sustaining the Syrian government.

> D) Syria has support by Iran in money, weapons etc. and Iran does everything to distract the US from Syria (naval threat in Hormuz region)

That isn't exactly the most stable financing operation anymore.  Iran is getting international sanctions pressure, which has recently degraded much of their economy... and the screws seem to be tightening.

On arguments E and F... who says the US needs to get involved in the first place?  Even if the US were to get involved, Libya proves that US support generally involves a relatively small commitment to the particular battlefield... it's relatively easy for the US to offer support in terms of supplies, logistics support, training, or even air support... and it's similarly easy for the US to recall use of those forces if the conflict becomes unpopular.  In short, Syria wouldn't be anything like Iraq, the type of conflict these arguments are more suited to consider.

I actually just lost a post I was just about to post, after about 3 hours of typing... so I'm going to try and be more brief, so as to avoid driving myself insane.

> Firewing wrote:

> @ Zarf

A) A dictatorship can be corrupted, because it needs control by the army over the people. Wars weaken the army grip on the people and may, e. g. if the war develops badly, try uprisings. Also are dictators, if not utterly insane, more predictable than democratic parties under pressure by its own population. Israel still controls the Golan area of Syria. A democratic government would be under pressure to gain it back, even with war. As the arabic revolutions shows, dictators acted secular, but are now repaced by islamistic parties. It is still unknown what the future will bring. In Egypt at the southern border of Israel the Islamists show open support for a more aggressive stand against Israel. Under Mubarak rule Egypt promoted peace and signed the first peace treaty with Israel.

1: Corruption generally only occurs among nations with at least some existing relations with one another.  Syria and Israel have no official relations, so you don't have the interaction that would allow that corruption to be fermented.
2: In general, dictators use the existence of foreign threats to justify the dictatorships... for Syria, that threat is Israel.  Cooperation with Israel would undermine that justification.
3: Israel has historically offered a number of Land for Peace agreements with Jordan, Egypt, and the PLO.  Syria, however, never gained such an agreement with Israel.  The empirical evidence would indicate that in 40 years of relations with the Ba'athist regime, Israel has not been able to negotiate a similar agreement with the dictatorship... all things being equal, that's a pretty good sign that a final peace just ain't happening.
4: Syria IS that fundamentalist regime you're mentioning as the worst case scenario.
Belief in pan-Arabism... check.
Support for terrorists... check.
Anti-Israeli rhetoric... check.
Nuclear weapons development... check (Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor about 5 years ago).

There are very few lines which the Syrian regime hasn't crossed.
5: There are natural inhibitions against democracies going to war.  There's the fact that the voting population has much more to lose in warfare than the government (it's the people which lose relatives and homes in warfare much more than the regime in question).

B) I have just read in an german news article that an russian ship with course Syria was boarded by international control ships for Libanon. The ship was full off munitions.
Russia wants to show that it is still a great power. In Libya the western coalition got an UN security council agreement for bombing Gaddafi out of control. Gaddafi was an ally of russia and never imagined that this would happen when they agreed, this won't happen again soon. While the zones of influence of the US and europe in northern africa and the middle east grows, the russian positions grow weak. Russia has no interest to lose more consumers of russian weapons, some of the last manufactured goods Russia exports.

The article you cite also gives me the justification for my argument... the fact that the international community was able to be intercepted without incident would prove that the international community can control the region and exclude arms shipments such as the Russian arms shipment in order to prevent undesirable shipments from entering the country.

Not to mention... remember, the military is beginning to turn against the government.  So... who's firing the guns the Russians would be shipping?

C) Without an UN security council agreement no foreign intervention will happen. At some point the rebels in Syria will surrender their hopes. China will wait until than. They have no interest in a success of the arab revolutions, because they fear uprisings in China when people realize that even cruel governments can be replaced if the people are willing to throw their lives away to achieve it. Like Russia the Chinese see their influence weakening and they want to stop that process.

There is no argument here.  This is just assertion of your argument.  Why?  Why would the rebles surrender their hopes when the military... that's the people with the guns... is starting to turn on their government?  This was exactly what happened in Egypt... if anything, this should spur the local movements.

D) There are offical sanctions and inoffical trades. Iran has oil and connections to other governments. The president of Iran just travels through south america meeting many leaders of states. Friendly handshakes and consultations about the aggressive USA and economic cooperations. The naval actions by Iran distracted a US carrier group. A serious threat may bound more forces. I mentioned Russia before. The nuclear technology in Iran is in many areas from Russia. The sanctions by the US and the EU may hit, but there are still Russia and China with lots of Dollars and goodwill to show the West their limits in Asia.

1: Oil doesn't cut it.  Iran is a gasoline importer (they require foreign nations to actually refine petroleum into gasoline).  Recent EU sanctions have targeted that sector, making it more and more difficult for Iran to sustain its own demand for oil.  That's one thing we forget about... Iran sees the same type of gas prices crisis the rest of the world incurs, or at least could be subject to such.  Anyway, Iran attempts to mitigate this problem by subsidizing its domestic gasoline (so the government is footing part of the bill for each gallon of gasoline a consumer buys).  This means, though, that every sanction, especially those against the Iranian gasoline sector, directly cut into Iran's budget... forcing Iran to make the same budgetary concerns the rest of the world needs to determine.
2: If China or Russia really wanted to prop up Iran, they would have vetoed one of the 4 different UN resolutions establishing sanctions against Iran.  They haven't done so.  Best empirical disproving of your argument.
3: In recent history, do you have any example of a nation which China or Russia propped up with foreign aid solely for the purpose of expanding their sphere of influence... i.e., not because they wanted access to key resources?  That's just not something they do anymore since about the Cold War... it's just not economically efficient.

E&F) As Libya has shown, without the US a operation is hopeless. Even "small" commitments are commitments and that means war. The europeans have other problems with the Euro now. Israel has no interest for war. The Arabian league is seperated. Only if the US leads a coalition into war the syrian rebels may have a chance.
Syria is worse than Iran, because it is seperated in many tribes and religions. Iran, as former Persia, is a grown nation. Syria was drawn on a map after the First World War. That is why some parts of the population are uprising and some parts support Assad. It would be easily like a second Iraq. Even if the western coalition would overthrow the Assad regime a long time of occupation would follow. As iraq shows, the result would be chaos after the occupation would end.

1: What about Egypt, Tunisia, or Yemen, where their rulers stepped aside, even after the governments were willing to cross the line and begin attacking the population?  What about the dozen or so nations which have seen substantial democratic reforms?  Libya is the exception, not the norm, to that rule.
2: You still haven't answered why nobody would want to commit to the conflict.  We're not talking about an Iraq or Afghanistan war.  The total bill on the war in Libya cost the US less than $900 million.  Relative to the US budget, that's an amazing deal.
3: Why wouldn't the US go to war during an election season?  Hell, NATO bombed Serbia during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, a similar referendum on the presidency.

I want to comment on this...but I will refrain (just deleted what I was going to type...)

Syria is no fundamentalist regime, instead it relys on the support of religious minorities like the christians:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800450,00.html

The Golan heights are of strategic importance for Israel. The area is rough and has been heavily fortified by the Israelis in the past 40 years, so Israel has no real interest to give it back.

The Assad regime is under attack and relys even more on the army. In the opposite the armys' influence relys on the Assad regime. So a cooperation with everyone who would support the rule of Assad is welcome.

Libya showed that democracies go to war very fast. Western governments were eager to throw in their military might without long discussions at home.

Your checklist is strange, but let me try:
The US is a aggressive regime:
Ruled by rich people only.
Monroe Doctrine locked the Americas as US backyard
Support for terrorists: torture in Iraq/abuses in Afganistan/Guantanamo/killing of Bin Laden without trial...
Anti-european rhetoric (see rep. campaign statements)
tons of nuclear weapons
aggressive foreign policy
...

The russian ship is free again with all munitions on board.

The rebels in Syria say everything to gain support. There are only a few soldiers who dare to leave service, because deserters are executed. Protesters may go to work after the rebellion failed, deserters not.

Russia and China drew a red line with their decisions. Western sanctions are ok, because their companies have to leave and our (russian and chinese) companies may step in. China has no problems with cruel regimes, as hsows their support e. g. in africa.

Russia supported for strategic reasons: Armenia, Belarus and Iran, maybe Syria. China supports North Korea.

In Tunesia the Islamists rule now, outcome unkonwn. Egypts seem to have voted for Islamists. Yemen is on the brink for civil war because of the many armed factions and tribes there. Syria is in state of civil war. Foreign interference may lead to a direct involvement of Iran and the Hizbolla in Lebanon. The whole region is a powder-keg, ready to explode. Libya was nice, because the coalition mostly relied on air strikes, while there was an ocean between both sides in the conflict. Syria and Iran have a direct border to turkey, a NATO member. At least turkey would call for NATO forces to protect its borders against Syria and Iran.

Clinton needed a distraction of the impeachment. He wanted to show strength while he was indeed very weak. What is better than bombing a small nation to surrender? Flint has a point here. Obama may go to war if his campaign runs bad.

Wait you wanted more brutal oppresion and restriction of civil liberties?

And yeah it is so sad when people are free to choose their own governments and ideas, i mean can't they just listen to us? We obviously know best!

This may be spam, but Zarf, you should persue a career in politics...I have yet to see you stumped by an argument.../endmancrush

Back to the argument fellas

Interesting question.  Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a democratic Islamic state, except that the term could easily be considered an oxymoron.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, the Quran is much more extensive in its establishment of rules governing every aspect of society, including issuing specific punishments, specific levels of evidence requirements, etc.  In contrast, for example, Christianity is given very general rules (for example, the 10 Commandments), from which derivations occur.  Among those who advocate Islamic governance, the theory states that the actual laws a government is supposed to uphold have actually already been handed down by Allah in the form of the Quran.  The government is simply the enforcer of the Quran.

So... here's the problem... what happens when the people want something that violates the Quran?  What does the Islamic democratic state do?  A proper Islamic state would require the Quran (and thus, the religious/legal scholars who interpret the Quran) take precedence, similar to how if the people want a law that violates the Constitution in the US, the Constitution takes priority.

There's two differences, though, between the Quran and the Constitution.  First, the Constitution can be amended if enough of a consensus exists... so if the Constitution is wrong enough, it is still subservient to popular demand.  Second, and more important, the Quran is written to be an extremely detailed document, unlike either the Bible or the Constitution, which are generally vague.  As such, one would be extremely hard pressed to find an area of law which Islamic scholars would not argue is covered under one aspect of the Quran... which means the Quran would take priority in all aspects of the law, and the actual voting occurring is futile.

@Zarf

Islamistic nations are theocracies which trend to religious hate against other religions and minorities. That is because Saudi Arabia supports movements for islamistic revolutions and with the money come radical religious demands. In most cases the islamistic groups adept these demands to be more radical and an counter part to the ruling party/class/ethnic group. That is why the western world must contain islamistic movements.

In most of Africa rebels are fighting the government without direct western interventions. E. g. in Nigeria hundreds of christians were killed by islamists at christmas every year. Does the western world send forces to protect them? No.

The Golan Heights were the key route for the Syrian armies in the Jom-Kippur war. If Israel would give the Golan back, it would be a sign of weakness. Israel is ruled by nationalists and radical jewish parties. They see the Golan heights with a diffrent view. For the nationalists it is a symbol for strength and glory of the Israeli people even when besieged from all sides. For the jewish radicals the Golan are already part of their sacred nation. Things are not that easy.

The Russian ship was not stoped by NATO ships, sorry for that. The cyprian administration of the port the ship entered discovered it with luck. They were not able to control the containers.

Deserters leave their lives forever if the rebellion fails. Many protestors switch to "normal" life outside the protests (which occur mostly on Fridays). A deserter is found as late as the next morning when it is discovered that he left his army unit. They have his name, adress, the names of his family...

No perfect sources but it contains some information. I would suggest you read some books about modern russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia%E2%80%93Russia_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State

Russia "supports" other nations with weapons rather than money.

China is the coming Great power #1 and so the world is its playground.

Except of Tunesia the US had great influence in all other rebellions and revolutions. The egyptian army got billions of US aid and the US talked the generals to act against Mubarak. Back door diplomacy.
Nobody uses nuclear weapons in wars. That is insane. Syria is close to the "holy land". Islamists would cry "crusaders" and the whole western world has great problems. Nothing is deeper in the regional minds than the crusades when barbaric europeans crushed the islamic world.