Posted on 05/07/2011 9:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
Pretending to be a bulwark against extremists, President Assad uses the Islamists to screen his oppression of secular democratic elements in Syria.
The Syrian government has long used Islamists to justify its rule by making the Assad regime look acceptable while doing its best to hide the existence of its secular opponents from the world. The Syrian government has sponsored Islamic extremists to the hilt (including al-Qaeda), while casting itself as the barrier to stop their ascent. Now, the regime is employing the same trick to frighten its citizens and deter the West from challenging it.
Riad al-Turk, a secular democratic opposition leader, says Assad’s political strategy includes “using the threat of the Islamists taking over and arguing that our people are not yet qualified to practice democracy.”
As soon as the uprising began gathering steam, one of Assad’s advisors immediately blamed it on Muslim Brotherhood theologian Yousef al-Qaradawi. The first casino was closed and the ban on teachers wearing niqabs and burqa was rescinded, helping Assad to frame the struggle as one between Islamism and secularism. When it released 270 political prisoners, all but 14 were Islamists. The regime also agreed to allow for the forming of a “moderate Islamist party loyal to the regime” under the leadership of Ayman Abdel Nour, a close personal friend of Assad. He was also told to create an Islamist satellite station. The regime wants to co-opt its Islamist opponents while undermining the secularists.
The regime refuses to even admit that its security forces are killing people, attributing the deaths to “armed gangs” and “terrorists.” There have been accounts of the victims’ families being required to sign statements affirming that the deaths came at the hands of these vaguely defined murderers before being given the bodies for burial. The regime has also claimed that it is combating “an armed insurrection by armed groups belonging to Salafist organizations, especially in the cities of Homs and Banias.” Protesters in Homs reacted by chanting, “We want freedom, not Salafism.”
This is simply the continuation of a shrewd strategy. The regime has permitted Islamic extremists to hold anti-American rallies in the open while fighting to make sure the secular opposition is not seen or heard. The late Abu Qaqa is an excellent example of this. He preached jihad and called for Sharia-based governance, yet was not put behind bars. Qaqa was involved in the flow of foreign extremists to Iraq and his former second-in-command, Abu Ibrahim, suspects he was an agent of the regime. Government personnel attended his rallies and Baath Party officials were present at his funeral.
The Assad regime also used the publication of the cartoons mocking Mohammed to tell the West: “We are the only thing standing between you and the Islamist hordes,” in the words of a source cited in a confidential cable released by WikiLeaks. In February 2006, the regime had the grand mufti instruct the imams to incite their audiences. An agent of the regime tied to the mufti helped organized protests which are normally prevented. The security services stood by as they took place and the Danish and Norwegian embassies were attacked. The source said that the regime was sending a message: “This is what you will have if we allow true democracy and allow Islamists to rule.”
The choice is not merely between Assad and Islamists. There is a real secular democratic alternative. The Reform Party of Syria estimates that only 20 percent of the population is Islamist. Dr. Barry Rubin, an opponent of democracy promotion as strategy, writes that “Syria isn’t likely to see an Islamist takeover.” He estimates the level of Islamist support to be about 15 percent and notes that the Syrian government has harshly repressed the Muslim Brotherhood and made it unable to effectively organize. He also observes that the regime’s promotion of radical Islam has led to a backlash against the ideology.
The demographics of Syria are also a hurdle for the Islamists. About 90 percent of Egyptians are Sunni and the latest poll shows the Muslim Brotherhood is in second place behind a secular party. The CIA World Factbook says that about 74 percent of the Syrian people are Sunnis (Dr. Rubin puts the number at 60 percent). The rest are minorities that will not support the Islamists. Kurds and Christians each make up about 10 percent of the population and 3 percent are Druze. The Allawite minority that the regime comes from is 10 to 13 percent, though the Washington Post put it as low as 6 percent.
The West must not fall Assad’s trickery. The uprising is driven by secularism, and liberal activists are being imprisoned. The Muslim Brotherhood, which ceased opposition activities in 2009, did not endorse the revolution until last week. Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah are on the side of Assad, not the protesters.
Assad is not Mubarak. He is a promoter of the radical Islamic ideology and terrorism that some fear will replace him. He is not an ally in any sense and is an enemy in every sense. The U.S. should not hesitate any longer to help the people of Syria who are aspiring to rid themselves of a dictatorship that threatens both them and us.
(Also read “You Want to Appease Syria? Not to Worry, Hillary’s Out in Front” at the Tatler.)
Assad is a creep. However, he protects Christians and other minority religions. Sadam Hussein did the same. Our stupid war in Iraq has about wiped out the Church in Iraq. Do we want the same in Syria?
“The Syrian government has sponsored Islamic extremists to the hilt (including al-Qaeda)”
Surprising, since Syria is run by minority shia. The protesters are sunni. Al Qaida is sunni.
Stalemate is the preferable situation.
Once upon a time, the Baath Party was the dominant party in both Saddam Hussein's Iraq as well as the party in Assad's Syria.
At one point there were discussions about the two countries merging, creating a new state. It fell through however. My guess is that two fascists could not agree as to who would be head honcho.
I would suggest to you that Saddam Hussein only invoked Islam when it suited him or served his purpose.
You call liberating 20 or 25 million people from ruthless dictator and his evil regime stupid? *rme*
Assad is pro-terrorist and anti-American, and I have seen no sign that his potential replacements are any different. We don’t have a dog in this fight, and we should stay out.
yes. it was stupid. Interfering in Iraq will be seen as equivalent to throwing a stone in a mud puddle in terms of furthering US interests. These people are not liberated. The minute we leave another despot will take charge. I maintain that the present Sunni/Shiite coalition has turned to killing off the Christians and destroying the historic Church there. What else of substance has changed? When we leave it will only get worse as they turn on each other again.
Short memory morons:
We went into Iraq when Sadam kicked out the inspectors and was believed to have WMD. Perhaps you are on the wrong forum.
Pretending to be a bulwark against extremists, President Assad uses the Islamists to screen his oppression of secular democratic elements in Syria.here's counterpoint from a summer 2011 issue of The Economist: here's the flip side (or rather one of them) of the current op-ed topic:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.