Well, although his army is majority sunni, the real divisions in Syria are not strictly sectarian. Some Alawis (Syrian Shiites) feel disenfranchised and actually oppose the Allawi dictatorship, while many Christians feel indebted to Assad for protecting them from the Sunnis. Many Sunnis will side with the government over the protesters because of economic concerns or out of the fear that Israel will capitalize on the unrest, both of which easily override sectarian sentiment. Thus the greatest risk is for the unrest to spill into Lebanon or Turkey, flare into war or guerrilla fighting there, and then spread back into Syria, at which point Syria becomes polarized enough for the possibility of sectarian civil war.

I believe Assad will go down. He has awaken Syrian people, and they understand that the only thing that stands between them and a better life is Assad. I don't think they perceive Israel as a real threat anymore, since Syrian border with Israel was quiet from 1982.

It ends in a successful crackdown. Bet da house on it ;)

Failed states don't result in a better life. The human rights buffoons are going to insist that it's better to have the world subsumed by anarchic dysfunctional political authorities because they can "choose" between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. This model of transition hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. The model that works is the Latin American/Spanish model of accommodation and gradualism.

But of course, we live in an era of entitlement and instant gratification, so nobody is going to be patient enough to build something gradually over time.

If Israel thinks being surrounded by basketcases is good for their security, I think they'll quickly find out they are 100% wrong on that. Israel's conflict with Syria isn't a border conflict, it's a proxy war via Lebanon.

Thank god for American Imperialism then

"Thank god for American Imperialism then "

good job

Putin, I agree with you on the fact that these regimes that are under attack in the Middle East have been better for regional security than the new, "democratic" ones will be. I mean, that's undeniable throughout history that autocracies are more stable, but on the other hand they are more oppressive and must go, which I think you agree with as well. My question is what is the Latin American/Spanish model (in brief). I'm not aware of what that is, but am aware that the current regime changes in Iraq and Tunisia style are not fluid nor do they work well

Pretty much the whole of Latin America (or at least certainly South America) from the 1960s to the 1980s was run by military regimes of one sort or another. Certainly Peru, Argentina and Brazil were beginning in the 1960s, Chile and Uruguay were beginning in the 1970s, etc. Spain was a one-party state of sorts from the 1930s to the 1970s, and Mexico was a one-party state until the 1990s. The transition model in these countries has been one in which 'democratic' reforms are gradually introduced, and the old regime is left a way out that doesn't involve arrests, tribunals, and possibly executions. Typically the old regime holds "free" elections (typically starting at the local/regional level before making their way to the national/presidential level) in which the regime's party competes with the opposition. The old regime makes constitutional changes which legalizes the opposition while giving the remnants of the old regime a way to keep some of their power. In short, they give the leadership of the old regime a stake in the new society. If you give them a stake, they would want seek act as a militarized opposition to the new government once the 'revolution' takes power.

The only case in which a complete toppling of the old government might work is if the opposition is organized and coordinated enough to govern. In all of the cases the opposition is highly fragmented and disordered. There's no real cohesive, centralized leadership with military discipline and a coherent program. With fragmented, disorganized opposition "revolution" is a recipe for complete disaster.

*will not want to act as a militarized opposition

Can Assad step down? Can he flee with his money? Who would give him safe refuge? Thinking of Assad fleeing conjures memories of the Shah. Thank goodness the American footprint in Syria is non-existent.

Interesting post Putin33. +1

"With fragmented, disorganized opposition "revolution" is a recipe for complete disaster."

Putin, as an old-school communist, how do you foresee the transition from capitalism to communism. Revolution or gradual change?

yes Putin, +1

I believe Jordan, Morocco, and Algeria are following more of that route right now, no? And by organized, you mean something more like the Solidarity movement I assume? Because i would hardly call anything in the Libyan, Yemeni, or Syrian revolts organized.

But where does Egypt fall in this, with the military in power. Surely the will follow through on the elections?

Are you asking about in the United States? Well hopefully communists in the US will be organized enough to govern should a revolutionary situation occur. I think all significant socialist revolutions occurred as a result of war (Cuba is the only one I can think of that wasn't, but that wasn't a revolution led by socialists - Castro was an Ortodoxo or something). In the context of the US, I admit that the only possibility of a revolutionary situation would be due to some kind of major war which requires mass mobilization of the entire country for war (akin to WWI or WWII).
I don't see gradual change working on the context of overthrowing capitalism in a powerful industrialized country like the US, especially since the US holds up the entire edifice of global capitalism. International capital will fight a fierce battle to prevent that.

The transition model I laid out for Syria or Middle Eastern countries is more for changing the government system in fairly weak, rather isolated, regimes in developing countries in which political authority itself is very shaky. It's not really a model for changing the entire economic system. Socialist transitions in a capitalist world are particularly difficult to do without revolutionary change.

Capitalism exists in the United States? The government taking over General Motors and screwing over salaried employees, Delphi employees and secured creditors in favor of the UAW is capitalism? The financial meltdown caused by the Clinton administration's Community Reinvestment Act that set quotas of sub-prime mortgages that banks had to write to borrowers who couldn't qualify for a loan before the act is capitalism? The NRLB telling Boeing where they can and can't build planes is capitalism? There are some grow misrepresentations on this board of what capitalism is.

Solidarity wasn't very organized but yeah it was certainly more organized than anything going on in the Middle East. Poland followed a textbook gradual model. In 1989 the Communists and Solidarity arranged for a "Contract Parliament" in which there would be "free" elections for the entire upper house of parliament while 65% of the seats in the lower house would be reserved for the PZPR. The result was a transitional government that implemented a new constitution which paved the way for the establishment of the neoliberal post-communist regime. Solidarity itself disintegrated into a bunch of personality cults or quasi-parties as soon as they got into power. Parties fluctuated so rapidly in the early/mid 1990s that it's impossible to keep track of what they were. But the "pact" transition paved the way for a fairly stable, peaceful transition of power from the communists to the reactionaries.

Yeah I think at least in Algeria's case that's what they are attempting with the constitutional convention. Bouteflika didn't have to do this really, because I don't think the opposition is too strong. But like Saleh he wanted to preempt any kind of turmoil and I can't blame him for that.

"
But where does Egypt fall in this, with the military in power. Surely the will follow through on the elections?"

Well the problem with Egypt is that it hasn't really been much of a shared transition process with the old regime and the opposition, plus the opposition is completely anti-accommodationist and wants to hang all the Mubarak people from the highest tree. The military isn't considered part of the Mubarak regime so they got away with leading the transition process. But I don't know what's going to happen in Egypt. There is no real leadership among the opposition. I think a coherent new constitutional order is going to take a while. In retrospect it would have probably been better if they had let Mubarak finish out his term while the military was put in charge.

You can be capitalist without being laissez-faire. Economic systems aren't black and white.

Largeham, laissez-faire? You remember when Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury? I defer.

1. Laissez-faire generally refers to capitalism without government restrictions/interference/etc, i.e. capitalism sought by libertarians and the like.
2. No, I wasn't alive then.
3. No, I'm not American.
4. Your point being? You stated above examples of government interference in the market (or so you claim, I haven't looked at them thoroughly), therefore claiming, by implication (and questioning) that capitalism doesn't exist in the US. I said that you can have a mix, that economic systems are black and white.
5. Defer to who/what/when?

where does it end? i don't know, so far human history has never ended... i'd say it will go on, violence, peace measures, varying levels of security and oppression... democracy has forced american elite to vary their tactics and use economic oppression, but it continues in all 'civil' societies.

not that i'd give up the hard fought freedoms i enjoy.

Tettelton really? It does not go from Capitalism straight to socialism. Sure the government took over General Motors, but if you remember the company was going bankrupt. The same outcome for salaried employees, but the company still exists. The financial meltdown cannot be put on to one single administration. The 90's were simiilar to the 20's in the sense that people became complacent. The economy needs regulation in order to function. The classical economic theory is wishful thinking at best.