Told he must go, Syria's Assad may outlast Obama in office

[webfact]

Told he must go, Syria's Assad may outlast Obama in office
By BRADLEY KLAPPER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bashar Assad's presidency looks likely to outlast Barack Obama's.

As the United States has turned its attention to defeating the Islamic State group, it has softened its stance on the Syrian leader. More than four years ago, Obama demanded that Assad leave power. Administration officials later said Assad did not have to step down on "Day One" of a political transition. Now, they are going further.

A peace plan agreed to last weekend by 17 nations meeting in Vienna says nothing about Assad's future, but states that "free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months." To clarify the timeline, the State Department said this past week that the clock starts once Assad's representatives and opposition figures begin talks on a constitution. The vote would determine a new parliament, though not necessarily a new president.

Getting to constitutional talks will be difficult. It implies that Syria's warring parties first reach a cease-fire and establish a transition government — something unattainable so far. Neither Syria's government nor its fractured opposition has endorsed the strategy yet or done much to advance it.

"Nothing can start before defeating the terrorists who occupy parts of Syria," Assad recently told Italian state television. Assad considers anyone fighting him, including moderate rebels, to be terrorists.

Obama countered: "I do not foresee a situation in which we can end the civil war in Syria while Assad remains in power. ... Even if I said that was OK, I still don't think it would actually work. You could not get the Syrian people, the majority of them, to agree to that kind of outcome. And you couldn't get a number of their neighbors to agree to that outcome, as well."

Syria was the focus for Secretary of State John Kerry as he headed to the United Arab Emirates on Sunday for talks with government leaders. Many more discussions with Arab officials are planned over the next months.

The uncertainty of the new peace process, particularly as it pertains to Assad, points to Washington's evolution from early in the civil war, when Obama and other officials boldly stated the Syrian president's days were "numbered" and sought his immediate departure.

The focus of Washington — and much of the world — has shifted now to IS, whose most recent attack killed at least 130 people in Paris on Nov. 13. As a result, the U.S. is cooperating with Russia and Iran, countries it once tried to ostracize because of their support for Syria.

The hope is peace between Assad's forces and moderate rebels will allow everyone to work together to defeat IS.

The U.S. and its allies say Assad remains responsible for far more Syrian deaths than IS. His military has used chemical weapons and continues to drop barrel bombs that indiscriminately hit foes and civilians alike.

But for all their brutality, Assad's forces are not directing attacks in European capitals, beheading American journalists or downing Russian passenger jets. Unlike IS, Assad has powerful patrons in Moscow and Tehran. Russian airstrikes since September have helped stiffen the Syrian government's defenses, while Iranian forces and proxy Hezbollah militants have added muscle to its ground operations.

The U.S. is trying to take all these considerations into account as it refines a common strategy with partners in Europe and the Arab world that see Syria's conflict differently. The Europeans are mostly concerned about the refugee crisis across their continent, and they fear more deadly attacks. Saudi Arabia and others backing the rebels want foremost to defeat Iran, which they would see in Assad's downfall.

The U.S. says both sets of goals are connected. To defeat IS, the president said last month there has "got to be a change a government," rejecting any approach that returns Syria to the "status quo ante." The war has killed more than 300,000 people and uprooted some 12 million.

The Nov. 14 statement from the Vienna talks, involving the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and more than a dozen other governments, avoids the most critical questions to achieve that. It does not outline which opposition groups can negotiate with Assad and which are considered terrorist groups. Assad isn't even mentioned.

In one way, vagueness is the statement's strength, allowing Iran and Russia to make common cause in the search for peace. But it may not satisfy everyone's idea of a "transition."

By itself, the plan offers no clear path for Assad's departure, raising the prospect of the embattled Syrian leader still in office when Obama's presidency ends on Jan. 20, 2017.

Western diplomats described a poker game being played between the U.S. and its own allies. U.S. officials said that while they accept the idea that Assad won't leave office immediately, the plan for his exit will have to be clarified as part of the diplomatic process.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are being counted on to persuade the Syrian opposition to support the plan, but will only do so if they get a guarantee on Assad. The U.S. and its European partners cannot offer that guarantee, according to the diplomats, who were not authorized to discuss the talks publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

If the opposition rejects talking, Assad will not resign as a result. The rebels would not gain sufficient strength to defeat him on the battlefield, and Russia and Iran would not stop supporting him.

Even if the plan is accepted by all and works to the best of expectations, Assad would be appear locked in for a transition process that could extend deep into 2017 or longer.

If after 18 months or two years, IS is defeated and calm is restored, opposition groups would risk reigniting Syria's conflict by reasserting demands for Assad's ouster. World and regional powers would face the same quandary.

For these reasons, some Western diplomats have begun talking about the possibility of Assad staying on indefinitely as a ceremonial president, though stripped of his control over the nation's security and intelligence apparatuses.

It's unclear whether any of the sides in the fighting would see that as an acceptable compromise.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-23

[craigt3365]

Assad is an unelected and brutal dictator and Obama is at the end of his legally mandated 2 terms in office. Makes sense. Dictators almost always outlast elected politicians. For better or worse.

[does]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

[Linky]

The question that needs answered is who replaces him. (Assad, not Obama)

[craigt3365]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

If he was elected by free and fair elections, we "probably" wouldn't be in this mess right now. I know of few truly democratic nations that end up like this. Many with dictators do. The people rise up (Arab Spring) and here we are.

Normal citizens in these countries are not in support of ISIS. They just want a good life, raise a family, and be safe and happy. Unfortunately, those in power don't always allow this to happen.

[Suradit69]

Assad is an unelected and brutal dictator and Obama is at the end of his legally mandated 2 terms in office. Makes sense. Dictators almost always outlast elected politicians. For better or worse.

And, as has been proven many times, if you remove some brutal, loathsome leader or government, what replaces him/it will likely be as bad or worse.

Saddam Hussein was about as bad as you can get, but removing him was hardly an improvement. Even the generals were predicting chaos, but were ignored by politicians who had absolutely no idea or plans for what would fill the vacuum.

[craigt3365]

Assad is an unelected and brutal dictator and Obama is at the end of his legally mandated 2 terms in office. Makes sense. Dictators almost always outlast elected politicians. For better or worse.

And, as has been proven many times, if you remove some brutal, loathsome leader or government, what replaces him/it will likely be as bad or worse.

Saddam Hussein was about as bad as you can get, but removing him was hardly an improvement. Even the generals were predicting chaos, but were ignored by politicians who had absolutely no idea or plans for what would fill the vacuum.

Yes, true some times, but not always. Many countries have gotten rid of brutal dictators and are doing OK now. South Africa, Uganda, Japan, Russia, Germany, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. Russia had quite a few....LOL

Iraq was a major disaster. Tunisia is kinda hanging in there...

[Thorgal]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

Syrians held elections in 2014 and Assad was re-elected with a majority of 73.24 %.

Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and the United States did not allow the elections to be held in the Syrian embassies.

[does]

You are right, but we are where we are. I am just wondering why overthrowing Assad has been a higher priority for Obama and his EU allies than going after Daesh (IS).

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

If he was elected by free and fair elections, we "probably" wouldn't be in this mess right now. I know of few truly democratic nations that end up like this. Many with dictators do. The people rise up (Arab Spring) and here we are.

Normal citizens in these countries are not in support of ISIS. They just want a good life, raise a family, and be safe and happy. Unfortunately, those in power don't always allow this to happen.

[craigt3365]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

Syrians held elections in 2014 and Assad was re-elected with a majority of 73.24 %.

Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and the United States did not allow the elections to be held in the Syrian embassies.

Because the elections were not free and fair and weren't open to all citizens. Nor were international observers allowed in. Kinda like saying North Korea's leader was elected by 95%. Right.....

Worth a read:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27675343

In towns and villages in Idlib over the weekend, people told me the election meant nothing to them: President Assad was a "butcher", a mass murderer - and anyway the regime would steal the election to give him 99% of the poll.

.................

Voting is only taking place in government-held territory, with many parts of the country either under rebel control or in areas being fought over.

[Thorgal]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

If he was elected by free and fair elections, we "probably" wouldn't be in this mess right now. I know of few truly democratic nations that end up like this. Many with dictators do. The people rise up (Arab Spring) and here we are.

Normal citizens in these countries are not in support of ISIS. They just want a good life, raise a family, and be safe and happy. Unfortunately, those in power don't always allow this to happen.

Sham Legion and Jabhat Al Nusra (Syrian Al Quaida) were active in Syria before the first uprisings from March 2011.

If you define the 'uprisings' in Syria as an Arab Revolt, you should consider that there was never an uprising from students, universities, etc...

Furthermore, the 'uprisings' who ignited the civil war were mainly organised at border towns/cities only alongside Turkey, Iraq and Jordan...

Syrian popular army is composed of mainly Syrian citizens: Christian, Sunni, Shia, Alawi, Alevi, Kurds, Arabs, ...

[Thorgal]

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

Syrians held elections in 2014 and Assad was re-elected with a majority of 73.24 %.

Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and the United States did not allow the elections to be held in the Syrian embassies.

Because the elections were not free and fair and weren't open to all citizens. Nor were international observers allowed in. Kinda like saying North Korea's leader was elected by 95%. Right.....

Worth a read:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27675343

In towns and villages in Idlib over the weekend, people told me the election meant nothing to them: President Assad was a "butcher", a mass murderer - and anyway the regime would steal the election to give him 99% of the poll.

.................

Voting is only taking place in government-held territory, with many parts of the country either under rebel control or in areas being fought over.

BBC ? UK's n.1 Government media outlet ...OK...no thanks !

You can do better than that...or organise next Syrian elections in let's say...Florida...

Edited November 23, 2015 by Thorgal

[Rancid]

I'm not Syrian, as such I don't believe I have a say in who governs Syria (or Thailand for that matter).

Many others don't see it that way, they feel the urge to force democracy regardless how many hundreds of thousands are killed. And only then if their choice "wins" the election.

So Nth Korea, surely time for regime change there too? Why not bomb them to freedom as well, or would it be they just don't have anything anyone wants?

[craigt3365]

BBC is government run and operated. But produce some good and fact filled reports. The same is reported by a variety of media outlets. Google them....too many sources to list here. But yes, the elections were a farce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters,^[142] and according to witnesses who spoke to the BBC, the government forces detained six of them.^[143] The protest was triggered by the arrest of a boy and his friends by the government for writing the graffiti, "The people want the fall of the regime", in the city of Daraa.^[142][144] Louai al-Hussein, an analyst and writer wrote that "Syria is now on the map of countries in the region with an uprising".^[144] On 20th, the protesters burned down a Ba'ath Party headquarters and "other buildings". The ensuing clashes claimed the lives of seven police officers^[145] and 15 protesters.^[146] Ten days later in a speech, President Bashar al-Assad blamed "foreign conspirators" pushing Israeli propaganda for the protests.^[147]

Protests in Douma

The protesters' demands until 7 April were predominantly democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, more freedom, abolition of the emergency law and an end to corruption. After 8 April, the emphasis in demonstration slogans gradually shifted towards the call for overthrowing the Assad government. Protests spread: on Friday 8 April, they occurred simultaneously in ten cities. By Friday 22 April protests occurred in twenty cities. On 25 April, the Syrian Army started a series of large-scale deadly military attacks on towns, using tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to hundreds of civilian deaths. By the end of May 2011, 1,000 civilians^[148] and 150 soldiers and policemen^[149] had been killed and thousands detained;^[150]among the arrested were many students, liberal activists and human rights advocates.^[151]

[retarius]

Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria. Obama has no right to say who should be president of Syria. The US are in Syria illegally. Syria's government is recognised as legitimate by the UN, Assad's regime has a seat at the UN.

But on Assad being elected when elections are held.

[retarius]

You are right, but we are where we are. I am just wondering why overthrowing Assad has been a higher priority for Obama and his EU allies than going after Daesh (IS).

Image free and fair elections and Assad and his party wins? Say the majority of Syrians worry about a complete disintegration of the army and goverment institutions as happened in Libya? Imagine ISIS and or other terrorists (moedere of not) take over Syria, and then Lebanon? And then Jordan? Anybody out there who can explain the fuzzy logic of Obama's ME policy?

If he was elected by free and fair elections, we "probably" wouldn't be in this mess right now. I know of few truly democratic nations that end up like this. Many with dictators do. The people rise up (Arab Spring) and here we are.

Normal citizens in these countries are not in support of ISIS. They just want a good life, raise a family, and be safe and happy. Unfortunately, those in power don't always allow this to happen.

Normal citizens had a very pleasant life before the CIA organized and Saudi/Qatari paid for uprisings...now 11 millions are refugees. It has been caused by the US desire for regime change, not by citizens wanting Assad out of power. Democracy when senators and congressmen are bought and paid for by corporate interests ain't that great....the chance to vote for one of two identical candidates every four years is highly over-rated.

[craigt3365]

Normal citizens had a very pleasant life before the CIA organized and Saudi/Qatari paid for uprisings...now 11 millions are refugees. It has been caused by the US desire for regime change, not by citizens wanting Assad out of power. Democracy when senators and congressmen are bought and paid for by corporate interests ain't that great....the chance to vote for one of two identical candidates every four years is highly over-rated.

Is that the reason for the civil war? I thought it was distrust in Assad. A brutal crackdown. Being upset with corruption, etc. You should do some research on this. Arab Spring wasn't invented by the CIA! LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎, ar-rabīˁ al-ˁarabī) was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and its surroundings. While the wave of initial revolutions and protests faded by mid-2012, some started to refer to the succeeding and still ongoing large-scale discourse conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa as the Arab Winter. The most radical discourse from Arab Spring into the still ongoing civil wars took place in Syria as early as the second half of 2011.

By the end of February 2012, rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia,^[1]Egypt,^[2]Libya,^[3] and Yemen;^[4] civil uprisings had erupted in Bahrain^[5] and Syria;^[6] major protests had broken out in Algeria,^[7]Iraq,^[8]Jordan,^[9]Kuwait,^[10]Morocco,^[11] and Sudan;^[12] and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania,^[13]Oman,^[14]Saudi Arabia,^[15]Djibouti,^[16]Western Sahara,^[17] and Palestine. Weapons and Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War stoked a simmering conflict in Mali which has been described as "fallout" from the Arab Spring in North Africa.^[18]

The protests shared some techniques of civil resistance in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches, and rallies, as well as the effective use of social media^[19][20] to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship, most notably used by the youth members of the Arab population.^[21][22]

I don't see mention of the CIA...

[thaibeachlovers]

some Western diplomats have begun talking about the possibility of Assad staying on indefinitely as a ceremonial president, though stripped of his control over the nation's security and intelligence apparatuses.

Some western diplomats are stupid stupid stupid. Short of assassination, Assad isn't going anywhere, but if western diplomats want to pretend they are important, dream on.

[craigt3365]

some Western diplomats have begun talking about the possibility of Assad staying on indefinitely as a ceremonial president, though stripped of his control over the nation's security and intelligence apparatuses.

Some western diplomats are stupid stupid stupid. Short of assassination, Assad isn't going anywhere, but if western diplomats want to pretend they are important, dream on.

I believe the problem is a majority of the country no longer wants him in power. But as a dictator, he won't step down. The various rebel groups won't negotiate with him. Kinda hard to achieve a peace plan with this as a sticking point. Can't blame the west for this....

[thaibeachlovers]

Normal citizens had a very pleasant life before the CIA organized and Saudi/Qatari paid for uprisings...now 11 millions are refugees. It has been caused by the US desire for regime change, not by citizens wanting Assad out of power. Democracy when senators and congressmen are bought and paid for by corporate interests ain't that great....the chance to vote for one of two identical candidates every four years is highly over-rated.

Is that the reason for the civil war? I thought it was distrust in Assad. A brutal crackdown. Being upset with corruption, etc. You should do some research on this. Arab Spring wasn't invented by the CIA! LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎, ar-rabīˁ al-ˁarabī) was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and its surroundings. While the wave of initial revolutions and protests faded by mid-2012, some started to refer to the succeeding and still ongoing large-scale discourse conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa as the Arab Winter. The most radical discourse from Arab Spring into the still ongoing civil wars took place in Syria as early as the second half of 2011.

By the end of February 2012, rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia,^[1]Egypt,^[2]Libya,^[3] and Yemen;^[4] civil uprisings had erupted in Bahrain^[5] and Syria;^[6] major protests had broken out in Algeria,^[7]Iraq,^[8]Jordan,^[9]Kuwait,^[10]Morocco,^[11] and Sudan;^[12] and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania,^[13]Oman,^[14]Saudi Arabia,^[15]Djibouti,^[16]Western Sahara,^[17] and Palestine. Weapons and Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War stoked a simmering conflict in Mali which has been described as "fallout" from the Arab Spring in North Africa.^[18]

The protests shared some techniques of civil resistance in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches, and rallies, as well as the effective use of social media^[19][20] to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship, most notably used by the youth members of the Arab population.^[21][22]

I don't see mention of the CIA...

Before the "uprising" citizen's lives were somewhat better than they are now. As for the reason for the uprising, I can't say who provoked it.

Corruption isn't a reason to take up arms, or half the world's countries would be in a civil war right now.

[craigt3365]

Agreed! What started the civil war was the Assad government's brutal crackdown on protesters, killing many. Their lives were definitely better before the civil war than now, but it still wasn't good. The Assad family has a terrible human rights history. This is how he treats his people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

The situation for human rights in Syria is considered exceptionally poor among international observers.^[1][2] A state of emergency was in effect from 1963 until April 2011, giving security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention.^[2]

Syria is a multi-party state. The authorities has been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.^[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.^[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.^[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,^[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.^[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.^[6]

Easy to understand why a majority want him to go away. Wouldn't you?

[Scott]

An off-topic post and reply have been removed. I think we can leave the Israeli/Palestinian situation out of this particular thread. There are other threads where commentary on that situation would be more appropriate.

[spidermike007]

Told he must go. Assad is not the kind of man who leaves because he is no longer popular with his people. He is the kind of man who decides rather than leave, he will slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people and tear the very fabric of his nation apart. That is how much he cares for both his people and his country. He is a goombah of the highest order. A man child. A monster. A freak of nature. A despot. A megalomaniac. A mass murderer. A genocidal dictator. He will do as he wants to do. And his billion dollar fortune will insure that. Pinpoint accuracy, with a campaign to "eliminate" him is the only way.