Why the USA should work with Russia on the Syrian case ?
I feel that the information in mass media is turning wrong when making the deal around Bashar al Assad because the situation now is not the situation four years ago.
Four years ago, when the West asked Bashar al Assad to leave, the reasons given by the media were obscure and the opposition was something that nobody did know about. Extremists? Moderate? Corruption? We could know what Assad was, we could not know what the opposition looked like.
The problem with Syria is like some governments were asking the people from around the world to choose who should manage Syria while it was the people of Syria to choose and take a chance for it. Who would have known who the opposition was, did anybody had heard of any political debates from Syria or from any opposition from outside Syria? The people around the world have their own questions about their own politics and even local, it takes a long time to make a choice. How would the people have known who was who in Syria, and who to support, or not ?
I guess that the war was something awful that had to happen because the people of Syria themselves did not have any idea. You cannot build a democracy by getting rid of a leader. Anyone who has tried to lead a team, basket ball, soccer, company, whatever it is, leadership is difficult to maintain and dictators are not dictators because they are strong but because the people around them are feeling strong. Taken alone, dictators are not anybody.
When Saddam Hussein was taken down, his army, his secret services and his local allies, strong families who had gotten strong, rich and powerful have been trying to maintain their wealth and this may be worst than dictatorship because the line is obscure and takes its design underground.
Taking Bashar al Assad down would have cost lives and would probably have set up the same kind of disorder than in Iraq, Lybia and Afghanistan. The disorder is not the consequence of the war in 2003. The disorder is the consequence of the war in 1991 and has slept a long time before the Islamic State identifies itself with a caliph. The caliph would die, the Islamic State would remain because it has long been prepared by some fanatics and religious leaders.
Bassar al Assad still there, many political and tactical opportunities have arose during the last four years. The discussions with Iran are a kind of opening that is wealthy even if not perfect. What makes the plan with Iran unperfected is not the plan itself, but the lack of knowledge the people have each other. When people learn to meet and to discuss, many opportunities happen.
Four years after the beginning of the war in Syria, the map of Syria has changed and the legitimacy of Bashar al Assad is now really jeopardized by its own people. Anyway, the interaction of external money, powers and influence still not give any powerful legitimacy to take Bashar al Assad down on the remaining territory because other countries have a right to think different and have different interests. Sometimes, a situation cannot be valued with power. The superiority of an army does not grant to win the war. The superiority of the West does not legitimate its actions, even if the willing of a democracy is a standard that everyone is willing.
The people, globally are willing to win when involved in a war, but they don't want to win bad, dirty and shamefully because the moral price would not leave them at peace. Syria would have won the peace while the own moral of the people around the world would disturb them. What the people want, is their values to be heard, and sound and understood. When they believe in a democracy, they believe in a world that is good and fair. The value of the West stands in the people who are willing to defend some kind of real humanity. Governments from the West cannot steal the hope the people have and cannot defeat them in their dreams.
On September 28th, 2015, President Obama had a toast with President Putin, which was a very great event. President Obama met with Iranian Ministers which was a great event. Why the people of the press aren't seeing this ? Why see the ugly, why not see the bright ? The way the press is seeing the politic will influence the politic and the press cannot be wrong through that. Some people are dying, this war has been a tsunami. A long lasting tsunami for the past four years.
Four years ago, Bashar al Assad was the president of 100% of the territory in Syria. Nowadays, he is the president of only 25%, maybe less. How why is the press considering that the United-States would have to deal with Bashar al Assad today as if nothing had happened. Bashar al Assad today may have the support of Russia, but there still be 75% of the territory that both Russia and Bashar al Assad army have to win back and if the West does not see the tactical opportunity, then I really worry about the military power of the West, because weapons are only weapons. They are no use without the military and political strategy behind.
Bashar al Assad was the president of Syria four years ago. He is now the leader of the Syrian army in Damascus an few Syrian territories, but a large scale of the population has defected their support to Bashar al Assad and at least three quarters of the territory have been destroyed mostly by the Bashar al Assad army. Bashar al Assad knows that, Russia see that and the United-States say that, but nobody put the facts into the perspective of political and military actions.
The legitimacy of Bashar al Assad is jeopardized, but where really is the question ? Syria is a large territory where Bashar al Assad has lost more than 75%. The question now is who will win back the 75% that have been lost, Bashar al Assad, Russia, the opposition ?
I think that the global media is wrong saying that Putin has won anything. Nobody has neither won nor lost because nothing has been done yet... except the few billion dollars spent with aircrafts and trainings to defectors.
Putin knows that taking back the 75% of the territory will be a deadly challenge, because the population won't want Bashar al Assad to stay. The best that Putin can do is stand by with Bashar al Assad, comfort the remaining 25% and say to the West: "look, I am here. Now, if you expect that Daesh will take Damascus for you to hit back Daesh and get this last portion of the territory, then, this is a challenge between you and Russia, because Bashar al Assad now stands on me" and nobody will take this challenge to hit Russia because the consequences would start a very bad war with heavy political, social and economical results.
Nowadays, there is a path, not large, which is to say "ok, we cooperate" what would not mean that the West would support Bassar al Assad, but that the West would support the idea of a peace process where Bassar al Assad would remain the head of 25% of his territory. The other 75% would be under the United Nations control to grant the neutrality of the peace plan until proper legal and legitimate elections.
Today's action is not to know who between Putin and Obama has won or lost. They both have to win over a situation that is not stable and that creates many many damages to the people, the faith, the legitimacy of the biggest countries, both Russia and the United-States. The United-States has more to lose by doing nothing than being part of some action on the ground, and maybe, this is time to innovate. Maybe, Russia and the United-States would enrich each other by facing on the ground a situation that both armies don't really know, I mean terrorism.
The war in Syria is like the war in Ukraine, a dirty war with much information delivered to the people of the world and little understanding of what really happens. We suppose that this is about military power, but the real reasons still be unclear. Why now some countries have chosen to take actions and why not before? The case of Crimea raise the question when we see the Russian military power standing in Crimea since always. Why now this Russian military power would change hands and why not before it has been built? We can stand behind the willing of independence and democracy of Ukraine, but if Crimea would change hands, then, it would have to be empty.
Personally, I believe that a cooperation with Russia on the territory of Syria would help the politics to design their own vision, not accordingly to resentments, but accordingly to the security that military powers are supposed to maintain and protect. If the West thinks that Ukraine belongs to the West, and that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, and consequently to the West, then, why not to make Russia part of it? Culturally, we cannot defend the freedom and believe at the same time that Russian and Westerners are so different.
The conflict in Syria has shown the many religious rivalries inside and outside the Middle East. Sunny against Shia, Orthodoxies, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and many others.... Minorities have been living in the Middle East since always and the people are now threaten in their belief. They shall not, and the Western politics who represent the people shall not put the dilemma for any unbelievable reason. The oil industry, the global economy shall not be a "state reason" for any kind of silent. I mean, when Saudi Arabia, that is supposed to represent a religion, use arbitration and murdering to stand the power of an unfair political view of the society, then the political western powers who make the choice to support this make something wrong and really untruthful to their own people that brings to what Daesh is doing to the people today, and especially to the women.
This is among the Western values to be able to disagree with a religion, and we may be able to change religion, and we may be able to chose our standards of living because life brings experience and because the evolution means that. Freedom of speech means that also, and "The Freedom" would not have any meaning if not feeling secured somewhere.
One last question we could ask is why to win on Syria? Has the West really have any willing to win on Syria what so ever ? To answer the question, we shall see if Great Britain and France could speak the same voice on a Syrian leader, then see what the United-States and Germany would have to say. Some countries are more stubborn than others. Lastly, what would a country or another have to win or to lose over the Syrian territory? Oil, an access to the Mediterranean sea, political and religious power? Daesh has defined the guidelines that the West would not have dared to enlighten without it: this is about civilization, and the belief into a common world of nations and values.
The following picture is a peace plan I have designed because I believe that my freedom does not only belongs in the hability to compassionnate, or the freedom of speach into the ability to read the news, but to interract and if I have ideas, and any willings to say and express my ideas, then the freedom to say it and express it because my freedom is also the freedom of the people to react, interect, agree or disagree to what I have to say. Click on the picture for the PDF.
