Posted on 04/08/2017 8:05:30 PM PDT by Hostage
The so-called Arab Spring was started by people who were inspired by universal ideals to put an end to authoritarian rule and corruption and to demand liberty, dignity and social justice. Although these demands have transcended the borders of various Arab countries, their trajectories and outcome have differed because Arab regimes are diverse among themselves in terms of their ruling mechanisms, domestic power structures, international relations, and the societies they have ruled.
The ‘Syrian Spring’ began gradually in March 2011 but escalated into a violent conflict that drew in regional and international actors and various competing opposition and regime forces. The ensuing bloodshed and deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Syria, the failure of the United Nations Security Council to reach a consensus on what action to take, as it did on Libya, and the involvement of contending external actors partially reflect the complexity of the current impasse. The ruthless rule of the Ba‘thist regime that has held its grip on power through decades of repression and torture, and the army’s brutal repression of the protest movement since March 2011, have led to the gradual disintegration of the state and the shredding of Syria’s social fabric.
In order to understand the Syrian uprising and its level of violence— now the highest in the Arab world — we need to know the basics of Syria’s history, the power structure of the Assad regime and the nature of state building and state-society relations under his rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at en.asaninst.org ...
I thought it would be good to have a background on the origins of the current conflict in Syria, how it started, and the history and relationships behind it.
Importantly, I wanted to find a source that was devoid of bias, political spin, propaganda driven, and one that was not in the UK or western countries of Europe as they have been overrun by political correctness codified into laws, penalties and jail time for offenders. Nor was I willing to seek a source inside Russia even though there are still excellent academic philosophers there, they have a long history with Syria and it would be suspect to use a Russian source no matter how esteemed a Russian writer might be. Nor would I take any accounts from the region of the Middle East for obvious reasons.
Unfortunately, there is today little faith in US Institutions that can be relied on to provide well-researched and grounded information without the cloud of political correctness hanging over a researcher's head. This is a sad state of affairs that will self-transform as foundations once again are able to detach themselves from funding biases that are driven by globalism, taxation policies, and a deteriorating respect for academic freedom.
So the search was not easy but I persevered.
Finally, I found a source where it was least expected; South Korea, the Asan Institute for Policy Studies.
The source is excellent and the material well-developed. It should serve as an excellent reference for understanding the conflict in Syria as well as understanding how the Bush and Obama Administrations started the trajectory of the 'Arab Spring' and further how Hillary Clinton was instrumental in sponsoring (translation 'funding and selecting *change agents*' that destabilized the entire region) programs that extended the Obama notion of 'community organizing' to 'regional transformation'.
Note the first sentence of this study paper mentions includes terms we are all familiar with in the arena of political correctness, as in for example a demand for 'social justice'. It becomes clear that the Middle East was set aflame by people that are part of a globalist enterprise where the term 'globalist' or 'globalism' is a euphemism for a general goal of doing away with borders and creating uniform government structures. Universities and cadres of young people were recruited and trained in this more grand form of 'community organizing' on an international scale
One thing to note about the 'Arab Spring' coming to Syria
Within 24 hours, before Trump bombed Syria, Hitlary said “Assad should go.”
When we study and research the origins of the destabilization of the Middle East, we find that Syria came later in the ‘Arab Spring’, after Iraq was taken down, after Egypt was taken down (although it was reestablished later), after Libya was taken down. Syria resists ever being ‘taken down’ and the Russians back them.
One thing we see is that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was in contact and aligned, and paid off in many ways in various pathways by the Saudis to do their bidding. In short, she became a sort of ‘global lobbyist’ for Saudi money which is considerable, and she worked to commit the American military to the task of serving as the Saudi’s private mercenary army.
Once these fact points are digested and understood, it is much easier to see how the conflict unfolded to what we have today.
One thing to understand that lies behind the region’s history is the Saudis have wanted a pipeline for decades to be built through Syria into Turkey and into Europe. But al-Assad, both the current and his father have stood in the way.
Another thing to understand is that the Russians do not want Saudi oil to have its own pipeline into Europe because it would compete with Russian pipelines that feed Europe.
Once these fact points are digested and understood, it becomes much easier to understand how the conflict unfolded into what we see today. One point of dispute concerns us, why we as Americans are involved in this, why we should continue to be involved, and should we mount a counteroffensive against this ‘global community organizing’, against erasure of borders, of installing world government, in short, the basis for this thing called globalism.
Historical Background
Until its independence from France in 1946, Syria had never constituted a unified state or separate political entity. Syria had always been part of various empires or controlled by external rulers such as the Persians, Greeks and Romans. From 1516 to the end of World War
I, Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire. The French and the British had promised to make Syria an independent kingdom after the Arab army defeated the Ottomans and captured Damascus. But with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, the French and the British divided between them the provinces of the Ottoman Empire situated outside the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, in 1920, the League of Nations handed Syria and Lebanon as mandated territories over to France.
Between 1920 and 1946, the French prevented the development of the Syrian national community by dividing the country into several administrative and political units along regional and sectarian lines. The French also fostered sectarian, class and communal separatism, widening the gap between the majority Sunnis and various minorities by recruiting members of the Alawite and Druze minorities for its “Special Troupes of the Levant.” At independence in 1946, therefore, Syria lacked an exclusive central authority that could serve as a focus of identity and loyalty for the whole population; instead, Syria was a
geographical expression with no unified political identity or community.
Syria’s troubled political and economic pre- and post-independence era and the defeat in the 1948 Arab-Israel War intensified conflict between politicians and army officers who capitalized on popular discontent to legitimatize military take-overs.1 This accounts for a succession of military coups (more than 10 successful ones between 1949 and 1970) and the rising influence of various military factions in politics and power struggles. Post-independence instability and increasing polarization in the political system led the elites to dissolve the Syrian Arab Republic and create in 1958 a political union with Gamal Nasser’s
Egypt, the United Arab Republic. The union collapsed in 1961, followed by the first Ba‘th military coup in 1963. Although it failed, the union was a turning point in modern Syria under which three important developments took place: (1) All political parties were banned;
(2) a comprehensive agrarian reform law was introduced; and (3) socialist reforms were initiated through the nationalization of major sectors of the economy.2 In other words, the union accelerated the process of state expansion by exporting the Egyptian system of economic and political management and laid the basis for consolidating one-party rule that used the state to advance development and block the formation of independent social, political or civil organizations.
The promise of egalitarianism was the pillar upon which the Ba‘th Party legitimized its rule while institutionalizing state linkage to peasants, farmers and the working class. Furthermore, the nationalization of industry and commerce, which brought the economy fully under state control, was decisive in transforming Syria’s power and social structure. In all this, the regime promised stability and social security. Originally, the Ba‘thist regime in Syria built its political power on mass rural mobilization and applying drastic socialist reforms. What was
most transformed under the Ba‘th Party was the character of the ruling class: a new rural- based elite replaced the urban rich of Damascus and Aleppo. For its main support base, the Ba‘th Party recruited those who were outside the system of patronage and connections, such as rural professionals, teachers, doctors, students and minorities. The Ba‘thist campaigns of secularism, socialism, and Arab nationalism promised equitable income distribution and the reduction of inequalities between the periphery and center and between rich and poor. Yet one outcome was sectarian mobilization among depressed groups who benefited from the reduction of inequalities as well as upward mobility mainly among the minorities.
The planned course of radical social transformation, however, took a different path after Syria’s decisive defeat in the Arab-Israeli War of June 1967 and Israel’s capture and annexation of the Golan Heights. The defeat exacerbated a split within the Ba‘th Party: Reformists/pragmatists led by Hafiz al-Assad differed with radicals led by Salah Jadid on how to deal with the consequences of the war. The reformist/pragmatist wing, which had a strong base in the military, held that radical Ba‘thist reforms undermined national unity, increased Syria’s regional isolation and provoked military escalation by Israel and the West.3
Thus, Assad’s coup of 1970, dubbed the “Corrective Movement,” removed the radicals from key positions in the party and state institutions, and maintained the broad lines of the Ba‘thist program. By being more pragmatic and less ideological the Assad camp paved the way for new regional, economic and political shifts that consolidated Assad’s rule and prevented the recurrence of military coups, institutional factionalism, and wars with Israel.
The Pillars of Assad’s Rule
In a weak state like Syria, Assad aimed to create a cohesive regime by conflating its identity with that of the state. Hence, any effort to dislodge the regime was interpreted as a challenge to the state itself. Unlike regimes in strong states with strong national identity, however, the military was loyal not to the state, but to the regime. Assad’s regime constructed three important reservoirs of power for its preservation: (1) a cohesive elite structure of power in direct control of state institutions; (2) a cohesive business sector dependent on the regime; and (3) the adoption of violence as a modality of governance.
Does this all mean that they will love us soon? More patience warranted?
Yeah, right ... no.
Whatever the masses of those in the Arab Spring wanted it was from the get go a Muslim Brotherhood operation intended to spread their power and influence.
Men like Coughlin called it before it happened.
To believe that it was what the MB wanted you to believe it was about is to take the blue pill.
Does that mean all Muslims involved were MB? Far from it. But the MB has a plethora of useful idiots just as the old Soviet state did!
The MB may have momentarily lost initiative and ground gained in places like Egypt but Islam will ultimately return to advancing Sharia and it is indeed usually codified into their “democratic” constitutions.
>Arab Spring
What a joke “Arab Spring” was and turned out to be.
islams trying to elbow into modern society while fostering their barbaric woman abusing, kid diddling, goat poking, woman stoning, cutthroat ways and general filthy humping ways into normality.
Anyone tolerating islam is either evil or a moron.
The MB did not start it, they followed it. took advantage of it. They are a group that watched to spot weaknesses. They exploit weaknesses.
The weakness found was caused by ‘idealistic’ people, people that thought the European was a great idea allowing unimpeded border crossings of people seeking work from say Lithuania to Denmark, of people traveling from Germany to a vacation villa in Spain, os the ability to set up a bank account anywhere, etc.
The idea os a region without borders spurred a notion of globalism, and the MB saw that development as an opportunity to blend in and form colonies.
The globalists led with idealistic notions that exposed weaknesses in governance, the MB followed.
Syria and its problems went before the MB. Its history evolved a harsh vertical governance. The MB followed a weak spirit of idealistic notions, and the MB fostered a resentment, encouraged uprisings, eventually arming people against the harsh rule and creating a rebellion. ISIS followed into the region similarly but with open hostility and a goal of ruling the indigent through terror.
The Asan Institute does a very good job at laying out the facts to reach a better understanding of the history and attitudes of those on the ground.
The reversal of foreign policy precedent by the U.S. that led to the cheering of the Arab Spring and destabilization of the Middle East (and the rise of ISIS) appears connected to structured donations to the Clinton Foundation by the Gulf States.
One has to ask - was this in the U.S. interests or the financial interests of the Clinton’s? Were there pledges to the future Obama foundation from the same donors?
In short, I think we were sold out and in return for millions of dollars in “donations” we now have hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions displaced, and untold misery that continues.
> The so-called Arab Spring was started by people who were inspired by universal ideals to put an end to authoritarian rule and corruption and to demand liberty, dignity and social justice.
Hahahahahahaha! You believe that shit?@!!!
It was started by Obama and Clinton.
God all mighty you people are idiots.
I don’t me you, Hostage. My comment is directed at the article.
Syrian history bump.
I would note that most of these monographs ignore or avoid the increasing economic pressure put on many food importing countries (almost all Arab countries are food importers) by Enviros encouraging the use of alcohol as transport fuel, thus increasing food prices. The triggering event of the Arab spring was drought in Russia, after Russia stopped exports of grain, various groups took advantage of what were effectively bread riots to exploit pre-existing fractures in their societies and attempt to change their countries government.
No, it was started by people who want a World Wide Caliphate, and to destroy all Infidels.
Yes, it was started by Obama and Clinton, and that is who the writer was referring to.
Do you have a reading problem?
Who is the ‘idiot’ here?
Shame on you. You should apologize to the thread.
I suggest you try to think first before engaging your mouth through your keyboard.
Ok, I did not see that before this early morning but the writer is referring to Obama/Clinton. The writer is based in a think tank in South Korea and is trying to write a scholarly piece without naming names.
It’s typical of expository writing to detach from actual figures to keep from drawing criticism when the aim is to explain.
Also, you will note the date of the publication at a time when Obama/Clinton were still in power.
So let’s give the writer credit for a job well-done.
Tha drought was a likely factor, perhaps a major factor.
Starvation or hunger was also a major factor that brought down the Soviet Union, also a cause of the French Revolution and so many other coups success and not successful.
In this case, the Arab Spring was an attempted revolution designed, aided, abetted by the United States in league with elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, conflated with a movement towards a worldwide caliphate, funded in part by the Saudis via Obama, Clinton, and others, led through university settings as a new era phenomenon, which eventually failed.
In reference to Syria, the writer makes a good exposition of the tension that exists historically between the community of al-Assad and the community on the outside of it, how al-Assad’s people were able to witness the attempted coups in neighboring Arab and Muslim countries and chose to react by launching a brutal crackdown, not unlike regimes in times past.
My general sense is that Obama and Clinton were unwise to expect that part of the world to transform to western standards, and especially so quickly if ever. Writers are just now becoming less afraid to record the lack of wisdom and criminality of Obama and the people of his circle.
History sees the American way as building a way of life that is so attractive, that it cannot be denied by peoples around the world. Muslim clerics point in response to the debauched elements of advanced western nations, and this has been setting the stage for the cultural conflict that exists today. To preserve their way of life, their power, the Arab states together with their clerics have mostly a religious argument on which to base their defiance, so as to caution their youth that the attraction of advanced societies is a trap, a mirage, is evil.
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.