Oh look at that, the West toppling a dictator and replacing it with something that’s somehow worse. Those elections are never happening and the civil war will continue. It’s Libya all over again.
They have a legitimate point. It’s not possible, or even feasible to run elections without a functional legal system, a census, and even laying the ground work of the government that is supposed to be there. Give them time before letting the doom settle in.
To add to your point, it’s worth noting that about half of all Syrians in the world live outside of Syria, and many of those will be returning home over the next few years, so even demographically speaking it’s impossible to create a parliament in the current stage.
We’ll see in 4 years then if the strategy of giving the most extreme groups money and weapons will have a different result this time. If only there were past examples we could learn from.
If a country has to live under a dictatorship anyway, I will definitely prefer the dictator in power being toppled even every month, rather than a single dictator being able to consolidate their power and terror.
This logic only checks out when you have a malevolent dictator in charge (which Assad was). A benevolent or neutral (in the sense that they’ll generally do their job as a ruler) dictator is better than absolute chaos, which is why people like Putin and Xi Jinping are loved by their peoples (as much as we don’t like to admit it, it’s true; they’re both popular in their respective countries). Democracy is nice to have, but people will take a dictator who’ll keep a roof over their heads over a weak or nonexistent government 10 times out of 10.
Oh look at that, the West toppling a dictator and replacing it with something that’s somehow worse. Those elections are never happening and the civil war will continue. It’s Libya all over again.
They have a legitimate point. It’s not possible, or even feasible to run elections without a functional legal system, a census, and even laying the ground work of the government that is supposed to be there. Give them time before letting the doom settle in.
To add to your point, it’s worth noting that about half of all Syrians in the world live outside of Syria, and many of those will be returning home over the next few years, so even demographically speaking it’s impossible to create a parliament in the current stage.
I mean, it’s kinda early to say that elections are never happening when the previous government has only just fallen.
We’ll see in 4 years then if the strategy of giving the most extreme groups money and weapons will have a different result this time. If only there were past examples we could learn from.
That’s a very big claim. It’d take more than just a dictatorship to be worse than Ba’thist rule.
If a country has to live under a dictatorship anyway, I will definitely prefer the dictator in power being toppled even every month, rather than a single dictator being able to consolidate their power and terror.
This logic only checks out when you have a malevolent dictator in charge (which Assad was). A benevolent or neutral (in the sense that they’ll generally do their job as a ruler) dictator is better than absolute chaos, which is why people like Putin and Xi Jinping are loved by their peoples (as much as we don’t like to admit it, it’s true; they’re both popular in their respective countries). Democracy is nice to have, but people will take a dictator who’ll keep a roof over their heads over a weak or nonexistent government 10 times out of 10.
What western country helped HTS defeat Assad?
Quite a variety of imperial forces: USA, Turkey, Zios, etc.
And how did they help?
Basically all of the major players.