Lessons From Syria: How the West failed and Syrians won
The Assad regime has fallen. After 50 long years of family rule, Syria can breathe once more. Met with a mixture of celebration, fireworks, and determined efforts to rebuild there is hope and a recognition of the challenges to come to rebuild a broken country. Syria enduring not only 13 years of devastating civil war but generations of oppression breaking down any semblance of opposition faces a tough challenge to reimagine governance.
Yet, the Syrians dreamed and imagined a future much better than the one that had been foisted upon them by a modern monarchy. The bravery of so many to first rise up in Daraa and then across the country is a testament to the Syrian people’s determination to win their freedom whatever the cost. It is important to remember while commentators are warning of the ‘dangers’ of post-Assad Syria, that of the 300,000 civilians killed in the conflict it is estimated over 90% are the responsibility of the Assad regime. Using barrel bombs, gas, artillery, sectarian gangs, and foreign mercenaries, the former ophthalmologist spared no method in his relentless quest to crush opposition and retain power.
We must not forget the level of brutality deployed by this criminal regime. The Assad regime was brutal even by the region’s blood-stained standards. The Hama massacre of 1982 killing an estimated 20,000 citizens was etched into the memories of not only those who lived in the city but all of Syria for the scale of destruction and murder it inflicted upon the city. The massacre is merely the most notable of the decades of oppression culminating in what can only be described as concentration camps and factories of mass murder which are difficult to believe even when seen.
“Word of local unrest made its way up to Damascus, where Assad faced a choice: offer concessions to pacify the local population or hand them the fist. He chose the latter, and that decision signalled an escalation that propelled the country into a decade of war and destruction.”
No one currently has a full accounting of the reported 150,000 prisoners trapped inside an elaborate network of prisons and it may take months or years to untangle fully. In some tragic cases, we may never know the full truth. Besides the bizarre associations with former war criminals, the Assad crime family, therefore, cannot be considered as merely another authoritarian regime, it was far closer to 20th-century totalitarianism than the average authoritarian.
Such levels of total surveillance and coercion led to walls of silence across the country. Syrians learned not only to be wary of the regime but one another creating a black box of a country narrowing the space for any dissent to emerge. This may be attributed in part to the ideology of Baathism. Ba’athism in both Iraq and Syria produced regimes that gave the state excessive control over its institutions and relied upon strong nationalism guided by a singular figure to provide its claim to legitimacy. There are historical roots laid in fascism via Baathism which as we know from history creates not only monstrous regimes but extremely personalised ones.
“The time of silence is gone: Syria will no longer remain the mute kingdom”
“Do not oppose the ruler. Be careful, the walls have ears”
“There was no planning. Because if it had prior planning, the government would have been able to eliminate it . . . The random equation is impossible to figure out. If we take, for example, random parts in each town, it’s 167 difficult to gather them. But if you take the formulaic organized thing, it can be figured out. So the government was not able to see any beginning. Random parts came out . . . from all segments of the population.”
Regime personalisation i.e., rule without institutional limits has become a byword for rulership in the region. This was most apparent in Syria as the Assad family had under Bashar developed increasing control away from the party. Hafez, Bashars father, ruled with an iron fist to be sure but created a strong party apparatus across the country integrating some Sunni Muslims into the system, most notably the Tlass family. Bashar took over the family business in 2000 and began to move away from that system creating a weaker party and narrowing the base on which he governed.
Those who called him a ‘reluctant dictator’ or a ‘potential reformer’ simply weren’t looking beyond the manicured interviews with media, especially Western media, who took this ordinary ophthalmologist to be ‘one of us’. There was nothing seemingly mad or grandiose about him so why wouldn’t he rule with grace and slowly democratise this most oppressive regime? Attempting to portray himself as a ‘man of the people’ Bashar would frequent the streets and visit his ‘people’ consistently as would his wife. Some who weren’t familiar with the area or the backstory bought into this act of a reforming ruler but this was always an error.
Beyond the pr stunts and imagery of an ordinary man thrust into a position of power, he did not want nor was ready for, Bashar showed signs of being just as ruthless as his father. In 2001, only a year into his reign, groups encouraged by the words of young Assad demanded action for greater reform and freedom. The Damascus Spring, a precursor to what was to come in the future formed of intellectuals and activists who emerged given the initial tolerance demonstrated by the regime. However, this tolerance did not last long with Bashar quickly ordering their arrest and torture. If anyone was in any doubt about where Bashar stood on this he labelled the leaders of the Damascus Spring
“agents of the West whose only aim is the undermining of Syrian domestic stability, in the service of the enemies of the state”.
The sad truth is that Bashar Al-Assad was not a reformer in any sense of the word. He embodied the very worst aspects of any dictator- the brutalisation of its citizens, the embezzlement of funds from the state, the hollowing out of institutions and governing by himself and a small cadre of slavish followers. The use of internal family and tribal figures in key positions has also been a feature of Bashar’s regime going even further than his father Hafez and he took advantage of his father’s death to clean house of the party itself. By 2002 ¾ of the top administrative officials had been replaced with new additions featuring his brother-in-law and old friends granting Assad total control. This did not stop with the administration of the party but was seen within economic interests as well as Bashar began a programme of economic shifts such as granting significant power to his cousin who was reportedly responsible for around 60% of the Syrian economy until recently.
The picture we see therefore of Bashar is of a ruthless individual who knew what it took to run a regime built on violence, personalisation, and prejudice. Yet, all too many in the West pretended Assad was either necessary or a genuine figure for change. Despite the former MP George Galloway’s ridiculous protestations, especially given his slavish praise for the dictator, the signs of Assad were there from almost the very beginning that he would continue his father’s dastardly work. Galloway himself was called out by the late Christopher Hitchens all the way back in 2005 for his wretched support of the ‘slobbering dauphin and human toothbrush Assad’.
Our failure to act when Assad was gassing his own civilians and the Syrian opposition was still somewhat united led to the continuation of a war which could have been ended much sooner. You may expect Ed Miliband who as leader of the opposition helped defeat the motion to express some regret but sadly he does not. His actions in helping to delay the arrival of justice is not even close to the worst of it. In 2018, Emily Thornberry, at the time the shadow foreign secretary, declared that Assad enjoyed a depth and breadth of support from ordinary Syrians that we simply did not appreciate.
“There is an argument that if [Assad] had been as overwhelmingly unpopular as the rebels told the west at the outset, then he wouldn’t be there. I think there has been a depth and a breadth of support for Assad that has been underestimated.”
With rumours already circulating that Thornberry had been briefed by Assad apologists and with Corbyn’s foreign policy history we saw the British left dive into the wilderness of crankery and dictatorship apology. This shameful barefaced lie led me to defect from the Labour Party and her history of remarks of endorsing deals for Assad to stay in power were then and remain today inexcusable. Of course, it was all for the birds and the belief Assad was necessary has proven to be ridiculous today just as it was ill-informed and stupid then. To call it a regime is to lend Assad credibility he does not deserve- barely a political unit in any sense, Assad’s criminal family once tested without their staunch allies barely held out for more than 96 hours. Syrians without the help of foreign powers took to the streets and forced in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens the ‘slobbering dauphin’ out.
The regime propped up by foreign money, foreign armies, and foreign goodwill had little to nothing left in the tank of governance. Running a criminal drug empire which made billions for the regime but nothing for ordinary Syrians was the tell tale sign not of a clever regime defying the odds but of one on its very last legs. The regime had never fully taken back all of Syria and it could never hope to do so without significant effort from its allies. The normalisation of Assad and his criminal empire, such as being invited back into the Arab League, were shameful acts that were shared as ‘moments of security’ for an outcast regime.
(Aaron Bastani making an ill-informed prediction)
Of course, there were those such as Oz Katergi who demanded that we did not forget what was the Syrian tragedy. That the Syrian civil war was not over and Assad had not become master of all Syria quite yet. The opening that HTS and other rebel groups found with regional and international developments leading Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah fighting other battles, left Assad especially weakened. No one could have anticipated the speed of the collapse or the timing but more should have realised that Assad in the long run was never going to survive the 2011 uprising.
There are now those that Assad has gone who are concerned about the future direction of Syria. For now, all I will say is that is up to the Syrians. We abandoned them and left them to the wolves of humanity by staying out. Red line after red line was crossed as we sat around stating how essential Assad was without realising he was the reason for the conflict in the first place. Today, and for the next weeks Syrians should simply celebrate. Few of us can imagine what it is like to emerge from generations of tyranny but they can.
Their shared trauma should not be forgotten by the world. The images of Sednaya prison are almost too horrifying to contemplate. This is what they have escaped and what we were all too happy to leave them to while declaring the necessity of the man doing it. The Syrian episode should shame all of us except those brave enough to stand up and demand change. The ‘West’ ultimately failed but the Syrians finally and with too much blood shed won.