The Syrian Revolution

     The violence in Syria seems to have no end. But before blames Bashar al-Assad as I will confess myself guilty to have done.  Let's actually look at the mans past.  He was the second son of Hafiz al-Assad his father who took over Syria in 1971 as the head of the Ba'th party.  In 1994 his older brother Basil, the heir apparent to his father was killed in an automobile accident.  

     Now what is interesting is that Bashar was not the first possible successor to the title of heir apparent, but the youngest child   Maher al-Assad, who followed Basil into the military and already a high ranking officer in the Syrian military, who had strong connections with several other high commanders in the Syrian military.

     Why would Hafiz make his son Bashar his heir?  On the surface most would say "now he is the eldest son, so he should be the heir"  Although it was and still is a single party system it was still a political curve-ball.  If anything bringing in Bashar would destabilize Hafiz's reign over the military officer corp. who would and did favor Maher.  It is unlikely that we will ever know the situation but we can draw our own conclusions in an intelligent manner.

     Bashar took over in 2000 after the death of Hafiz, there was still talk of Maher ascending to the presidency, however he was too "hot tempered" and Bashar was ultimately placed in the office of President.  I use the word place because before Bashar became the President of Syria Maher took over the Republican Guard, the forces which are placed in Damascus to protect the capitol.  

     Based on these facts it is my own conclusion that Bashar has been puppetized by his brother Maher.  

     Bashar has been seen by many in the region and around the world as a reformer, who worked to weaken the  Ba'th party's power in Syria, loosened his father's restrictions on freedom of expression and pulled back the Syrian army that had occupied Lebanon since 1976.

     He was reelected in 2007 by an overwhelming majority, many authorities call the election a sham, and it probably was.  Yet his popularity in Syria was high, and from what information I can gather before Arab Spring did not seem as if it was a cult of personality produced by pure fear.  

 

     Then Arab Spring came and swept through the Middle East.  One would think that the public would support Bashar, but no suddenly violent uprisings by "pro-democracy" protesters spiked around the country.    

     How did Bashar wish to respond?    

     

     It was not with his brothers military reprisals, but with further civil reform, he changed his cabinet, and ministers, he abolished the Syrian Emergency Laws, and he even dissolved the State Supreme Security Court. 

     How did the public respond when these actions where executed and implemented, when their demands were being addressed, they did not go back to their homes, more violence then ever before.

     A student of history can't help but be reminded of King Louis XVI who was sent to the guillotine, a man who was politically weak, dependent on his advisers and a man who just wanted to be a locksmith.