Civil wars are easy to predict. The result is easy to glean well before they come to an end. Whether it was the American Civil War where Jefferson Davis did not doubt that he would lose the war after Atlanta fell, or in the 2011 Libyan case where Muammar Gaddhafi was fighting a lost cause after the NATO intervened, this has been true in most instances.

Following that long line of examples, is Bashar Assad of Syria. A civil war that began with the Arab Spring, the Syrian case is not quite different when compared with the instances that history has to offer in example. As determined as a leader maybe, it is no necessary indication that he will win a civil war. That Assad will not emerge victor, no matter how long drawn the war maybe, is clear. And it isn’t just now: this was clear as early as in February 2011.

And yet, why does he continue to fight?

Primarily, because this is no negotiation table he can get his way out of. Negotiated peace is a good idea on paper, in that it offers the members of the Free Syrian Army a certain amount of power in exchange for peace. This has been manifested in many instances – from Nicaragua to Cambodia. But, in the Syrian case, a state of negotiated peace is not tenable in the eyes of both, Assad and the FSA. For the former, any offer of power-sharing is a dent in his administrative prowess and a decisive defeat. Agreeing for a power-sharing regime would result in his relegation to a minority position. But, for the latter mere power-sharing would not be enough as demands will mount for Assad’s exit. There is also the pressing concern that Sunnis and Christians would not necessarily see eye to eye on power-sharing.

Assad has two choices: ceding power and living in exile, or, fighting tooth and nail right to the finish. Dictators have ceded power when defeat loomed large – but, Assad doesn’t have the luxury of making that choice because a safe exile is not an option open to him – especially since it leaves him vulnerable to prosecution at the hands of the ICC. Having signed the Rome Statute, he has agreed to an international treaty that allows him to be prosecuted if he engages in crimes against humanity – which, as the world knows, he has done. That Assad can be prosecuted for war crimes is not news.

With this, it seems clear that Assad will continue fighting, in the hope of defeating the rebels. It seems clear that Assad will hope for continued support from Iran and Russia.

And that’s where he is wrong. The international community’s continued economic sanctions, coupled with a continued state of war will erode his regime.

Views: 51

Tags: Assad, Civil, Syria, Wars

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Comment by Evan O'Neil on February 25, 2013 at 4:14pm

There does indeed seem to be a grisly logic prevailing in this conflict, albeit more slowly than it did in Libya. With the numbers of refugees fleeing the country daily it's hard to see how it can be sustained much longer.

Carnegie Council

Rescue: Refugees and the Political Crisis of Our Time, with David Miliband

Today there are 65 million people who have fled their homes because of conflict or persecution, says the International Rescue Committee's David Miliband. These are refugees not economic migrants, and half of them are children. It's a long-term crisis that will last our lifetimes. Why should we care? And what can we do about it, both at a policy level and as individuals?

Clip of the Month: Winning the Argument on Immigration with David Miliband

As president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), David Miliband oversees both the agency's humanitarian relief operations and its refugee resettlement and assistance programs in several American cities. Although he was not responsible for the EU’s decisions on refugees or immigrants, during his tenure as the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary from 2007 to 2010, he saw how his government responded to an unexpectedly large influx of European workers and the resulting impact on British society. In this clip, Miliband draws on both of these roles and explains why he is confident that Europeans and Americans can be convinced that immigration, in all of its forms, can be positive, economically and culturally. In any case, he says, it’s an argument that "has to be won."

Slowing the Proliferation of Major Conventional Weapons with Jonathan D. Caverley

The news is full of discussions on how to prevent further nuclear proliferation. But you can't understand a conflict like Syria without talking about major conventional weapons, such as artillery, missile defense, and aircraft, says military strategist Jonathan Caverley. Since the U.S. is by far the world's largest producer of such weapons, Caverley proposes that it creates a cartel, similar to OPEC, to slow down sales.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2017   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service