There is little systematic evidence to suggest that “ruthlessness” is, in and of itself, a critical variable.
Civil resistance is not sufficient to bring down a ruthless regime, as one can see in Bahrain or in Yemen. But dismantling the ideological base of the regime is an essential first step, whether violent or nonviolent.
Foreign military intervention would prolong the war and increase the carnage still further. But this does not mean that the US in conjunction with others, including Syrian civil society, cannot do anything to help the situation. Reply to Nader Hashemi.
This is a reply to Stephen Zunes' response to the author. Zunes argues that violent or nonviolent movements alike must be determined by the strategies and tactics that maximize their chances of success. The author counters that Zunes is ignoring what most Syrian citizens want from the internationa
The Assad killing machine, which was overwhelmingly nonchemical to begin with, can continue unfettered on its rampage. The killing fields of Syria – no end in sight.
Probabilities are always shredded by violent conflict, except the probability that freedom and justice will be postponed. See Part One here.
In Syria, mixing violent and nonviolent resistance jeopardized people power, particularly when violence became the main driver of resistance from early 2012 onward. See Part Two.
Whether or not a movement is primarily violent or nonviolent, what is important is whether it employs strategies and tactics that can maximize its chances of success. A reply to Nader Hashemi.
Military intervention, as regrettable and complicated as it may be, is the only way to stop Assad’s killing machine. This is what most Syrians are demanding from the international community. If we truly believe in the right to self-determination, then we are morally obligated to listen to them.
