Assad's Pseudo-Baathist Regime Clings to Power

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 8, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

            Calling Bashar al-Assad’s Syria a “terrorist regime,” 56-year-old Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab defected to the Free Syrian Army, the main opposition group seeking to topple the al-Assad government.  Hijab, a Sunni Arab, occupied the ceremonial post for only two months, a kind of token in al-Assad’s Shiite Alawite regime.  Like so many of today’s Arab states, the Baathist socialist, nationalistic and pan-Arab ideology has been eclipsed by today’s old ethnic, tribal, and religious divisions.  When the Baathist Party was founded by Michael Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and Zaki al-Arsuzi in 1947, it was based on anti-colonial, socialist and pan-Arab principles.  That was the same Pan-arab ideology that drove Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser to evict the British in 1952.  Fascism inspired Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s coup in 1979, ending Baathist rule in Iraq.

            Now fighting for his survival, al-Assad finds himself engulfed in a religious war, pitting his Alawite Shiite minority against the rebelling Sunni majority, currently vying to oust him from power.  Hijbab’s departure marks the end of Syria’s façade including Sunnis in largely titular roles in his Alawite government.  When Bashar came to power following his father Hafez al-Assad’s death April 10, 2000, he took over a Baathist Party in name only.  Hafez’s 1971 fascist  coup ejected and jailed Syrian Baath Party leaser Jalah Jadid.  While inheriting the regime in 2000, Bashar learned that only fascism works to suppress ethnic, tribal or religious divisions.  Whether al-Assad happens to be part of the Alawite Shiite minority or not, his hold on power is purely military.  Hijab’s defection comes as no surprise, since he was al-Assad’s token Sunni in an otherwise fascist regime.

            Like Saddam Hussein who gave the pro-socialist, nationalistic and pan-Arab Baathist Party a dirty name, al-Assad ruled Syria as a military dictatorship.  Opposition groups, led by Saudi-backed Wahhabist fractions, have opened up multiple battlefronts against al-Assad.  “I announce that I am from today a soldier in this blessed revolution,” said Hijab, reflecting the Islamic zeal that now drives the Syrian insurgency.  Khaled al-Hbous, a senior figure in the Free Syrian Army, helped Hijab and his family defect to Jordan.  With al-Assad, who’s been in hiding for some time, preparing the battle for Syria’s largest city of Aleppo, Hibab’s defection could mark a turning point in the war.   When President Barack Obama announced last week $12 million in humanitarian aid, it signaled U.S. support for Syrian rebels.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John McCain support Syrian rebels.

            Syria’s coup began March 15, 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring that watched Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fall to pro-Islamic groups.  Before the U.S. throws its weight behind the insurgency, they need to consider whether the regime that follows adds or detracts from U.S. interests.  If nothing else, dictators like Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad helped keep secular governments relatively stable.  Pan-Islamic movements, not Baathism, drive today’s revolutionary movements.  After spending over $1 trillion and losing more that 4,500 U.S. troops, the U.S. has pushed Iraq into the Iranian hands.  Iraq’s U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki has closer ties to Iran than the country that spent U.S. blood and treasure to oust Saddam.  Whether the U.S. admits it or not, Iraq now has closer ties to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s radical Shiite regime than feverishly seeks nuclear weapons.

            If there are any lessons from Iraq, it’s difficult to interfere with a nation’s civil war.  When the International Red Cross officially called the Syrian uprising July 15 a civil war, it was time for the U.S. and other foreign governments to take notice.  Russia and China have been adamant on the U.N. Security Council about supporting the al-Assad regime over the unknown entity that could follow.  Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan quit Aug. 4 as a special peace envoy because he couldn’t get al-Assad to sign onto his plan.  Annan’s plan, among other things, called for a transition to Democratic rule, in effect handing Syria over to Wahhibist Sunni factions.  Al-Assad knows that his Alawite Shiite minority will have hell to pay for suppressing Sunnis since his father’s fascist regime seized power March 12, 1971.   Russian and China oppose Western attempts to oust al-Assad.

            With the decisive ground battle for Aleppo looming, neighboring ally Iran has warned foreign forces to stay out of the conflict.  While Hillary and McCain call for U.S. military intervention, Obama isn’t likely to intervene until after the election, if ever.  “Defections are occurring in all components of the regime save its hard inner core, which for now has given no signs of fracturing,” said Syrian expert Peter Harling with the International Crisis Group, seeing the regime more recalcitrant.  Ending the al-Assad regime won’t be easy without a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force.  Since Russia and China won’t sign on, the U.S. would have to intervene unilaterally, causing chaos in the Security Council.  No matter what the bloodshed and humanitarian crisis, the U.S. should stay clear of another civil war promising to waste more U.S. lives and tax dollars.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.