The interesting part in all this is that almost all the would-be participants in The Fall Of Bashers themselves have vulnerabilities. And this irrespective of where they stand. Consider Russia where Vlad The Bad can expect problems if elected as President. Iran, well, we all know what the problems there are. Not helped by impending elections. Iraq, if Bashers goes, so it goes. Jordan. The 'king' there, be it remembered, also had a Family Feud rival who was passed over; besides, we all remember from whose country Zarks of Iraq originated, yes? Turkey is in deep waters, Washington loves what it says about Bashers but is slightly less enthusiastic about Erdy's spats with Israel. Bound to be some trouble there, maybe no longer from left-right dog-fights but a chastened military, Kurds who seem to be doing fine without Apo (now, till his expulsion from Damascus there was an earlier spat; and who knows what else.Saudi Arabia and its hangers-on are wondering what'll happen to them. Which is why the obese 'king' has taken to blaming foreign hands for the Arab Spring. Iranian hands. I suppose this is progress -- Zionists were once the preferred Goldstein.

His detractors may want to see the back of Bashers, what they really ought to do is to wonder for whom the bells tolls next.

My physician here in Tucson is Syrian and certainly wouldn’t agree with Nir Rosen’s ‘rosy scenario’. He still has family in Syria and his brother is an electrical engineer who while single lives and works in Damascus. While meeting with him last week about my bum knee he described to me a regime that seems barely perturbed by the demonstrations. He seems to think there is little similarity between the circumstances of the ‘Arab Spring’ trio of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and that of Syria. His view is that the opposition is so diverse and alienated towards one another that Assad’s government a regime that he has little love for equally has little to fear from them.

I recall about this time in 1982, when Bashar al-Assad was about 17, his old man sent Bashar's uncle Rif'at over to Hamah, presumably to quell a disturbance by the Muslim Brotherhood there.

The death toll was reported as being between 20 or 30 thousand (maybe 40?). Unfortunately I can't give you an accurate body count because when ole Rif'at and his Syrian combined arms force got through, they had flattened the town of Hamah, with the Syrian Mukhabarat (intel agency) sweeping-up anyone more-or-less still able to fog a mirror up by breathing.

So yea, Nir Rosen has a point that Bashar did get-off to a slow start. However, Bashar seems to be picking-up momentum, and unlike Libya and/or even Egypt, the Alawite generals that run the Syrian military and intelligence service seem to be united firmly behind Bashar. . .unlike the opposition groups that are fragmented and can't seem to even agree on how to go about regime change.

damages the credibility of his analysis. I did not find anything of particular value in his conclusions. They did not seem informed by his time in Syria, but by his pre-conceived political beliefs.

Having said that, his previous interviews relating to the nature and composition of the uprising (linked at the top of the article) were very illuminating, particularly his observations that all of the fighters he met were Sunni and that some of the Syrian 'foreign fighters' who went to Iraq in 2003 had quickly returned once they learned how dangerous Iraq had become. Also of interest was the manner in which opposition groups funded weapons purchases and the role of Syrian military defectors.

Can't imagine that would be good. Rosen's analysis argues for a rise in extremism that would offset any benefits gained by a Hamas-Assad breach.

If this uprising was a genuinely organic movement that's one thing, but if it was provoked, planned or encouraged, somebodies or some institution(s) were really, really reckless. Creative destruction ain't cute, and it ain't decent.

Nothing new in this--"hesitated at the crucial moment..."--if you've read Timur Kuran's analysis of the demonstrations in Berlin against the E. German government. The E. German Politburo, IIRC, came within one vote of ordering massive force to be used against the early demonstrators. Honecker was being treated for cancer and was unable to ram through the use of force; when he finally authorized it, it was too late to quell the mass demonstrations and the local party officials were unwilling to order the murder of their own people on such a large scale.

Syria is different though in that the ruling Alawite minority feels its fighting for its life and has the backing, reluctant though it may be, of other minorities who view it is as the more desirable alternative.

...wasn't the actual analysis. It was the offhand comment that the Israeli intel services aren't what they used to be (Arabic skills and tradecraft were highlighted as weaker than in the past).

On Saturday night I had dinner with an old friend who spent 4 years in the Israeli paras spanning the first intifada. He said, "the Israeli army is in a lot of trouble now. When I came in we were terrified of the sergeants - they were these mean Sephardic guys who spoke Arabic to each other and bareknuckle kickboxed in the barracks. Now every Israeli kid wants to either memorize the Torah for a living or create an internet start-up. We are getting soft as a country and I think that if we get in another war it will be even worse than Lebanon in 2006."

Granted, this smacks of the "back in the old Corps" stories I always used to hear from older Marines, but it makes me wonder, what are the actual capabilities of the Mossad and Sayeret assets to move the ball down the field in Iran and/or Syria? Does the reality match the hype?

That quote is only one part of a much longer argument which does not clearly state 'the Syrian government will win'. Be careful about how you interpret it.

Can anybody offer a sensible link to current western understanding of the central issues in Syria today: whether or not that nation's president is justified in his claim that what his army is doing is appropriate response to a serious armed revolt there? Is there any reasonable expectation that the current violence will die down without aggressive foreign interventions?

Current news coverage seems limited to showing shaky images of the horrors in Homs, maps suggesting that similar horrors exist elsewhere, and daily demands from people disaffected from their government that the rest of the world has a moral obligation to supply them with weapons and, who knows, possibly an invasion.

All I know at the moment is that people, may of them evidently innocent civilians, are dying, and Barbara Walters is probably the worst interviewer of foreign presidents in the history of television journalism.

Why would she agree to it if she said Obama was not ready to be President? It's all just politics. Guess what? I don't think McCain hates Obama nearly as much as he led the American people to believe. They say these things to win elections..

"Is rio orange war always forfait internet mobile inevitable ?"
MaximB